Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insertion sort implementations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. It's unclear to which Wiki it should go, but that's not for this Wiki to decide, so I guess I'll just mention both 'source and 'books in the transwiki log. Note that LiteratePrograms does not use the GFDL and so we can't transwiki there. -Splash^talk 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion sort implementations and Selection sort implementations

Wikipedia is not a code repository, nor is it a programming tutorial. This content may or may not be useful, but it's certainly not encyclopedic. I propose to delete or transwiki to WikiBooks, where original content belongs. bmills 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Included in this nomination are:

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quicksort implementations, which resulted in a transwiki and delete. --bmills 18:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikisource or wikibooks. We should come up with an explicit policy for where to send useful source code which has reference value. --Karnesky 18:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiSource has an explicit "no original writings" policy, which makes it inappropriate for most of the source code proposed for deletion from Wikipedia. So I think WikiBooks is the only appropriate place for it to go. See Wikisource:Wikisource:What is Wikisource? for relevant discussion, including whether material should to go WikiSource or WikiBooks. --bmills 18:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WS explicity takes source code in the public domain or under the GFDL (as WP's articles are licensed under). Other source code has been transwikied there (see, for example, WikiSource:Transwiki:99_Bottles_of_Beer_computer_program). I'm not satisfied that source code fits (or was intended to fit) under the "original writings" exception at WS. As I said, there is a discussion to be had here, but I don't think AfD is the ideal place to hold it. --Karnesky 19:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also see WikiSource:Source_code. They actually request an entry on these sorting implementations (though they also request Quicksort, which didn't get transwikied to WS). --Karnesky 19:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Finally, see WikiBooks:Talk:Transwiki:Quicksort_implementations#Wikisource for the reasoning on why they merged to WikiBooks. --Karnesky 19:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other alternative is to direct such content to LiteratePrograms which, while not a WikiMedia project, is a wiki specifically designed for this type of information. Leland McInnes 20:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per Karnesky.--Isotope23 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transwiki --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or transwiki) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quicksort implementations. —Ruud 22:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all source code only articles. WP has no chance to be source code repository. Pavel Vozenilek 23:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's on my list of things to do, and a lot of progress has been made in the past week or so. --bmills 02:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. --ZeroOne 01:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-25 05:41Z
Delete or Transwiki per nom. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki per nom. --Pfalstad 13:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.