Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MISRA C++

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 was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MISRA C++

Topic appears completely non-notable. The existence of a programming language by itself does not establish notability of the topic. Jehochman ^Talk 15:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Motor Industry Software Reliability Association (and its acronym MISRA) were deleted as spam, this article (MISRA C++) as such has no existence, it was better as a part of Motor Industry Software Reliability Association. Suggest to delete this, and recreate as a redirect if Motor Industry Software Reliability Association is deemed suitable to exist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You're assuming that non-notability is inherited. The organization itself may not have received enough press coverage for a Wikipedia article, but the two standards it promotes may well have. VG ☎ 08:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re comment. True, though I would say that a company that writes notable software should inherit the notability of the notable software (although also that is not really necessery). I have been going through the edit histories, and I see that the programming languages were part of an old version of the article, and that Derek farn split them out into the seperate subjects. I think the problem here is that none of it was referenced independently at all (though the few external links suggested around, and some of which are/were in articles would make good references. Maybe stub it all down and try to reference it properly? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the person who speedied MISRA as spam, I have not problem if an article is written on the subject as long as notability is established. However, notability isn't the reason it was deleted...it was because it was quite spammish, and there were some strong COI issues with the person who created it as well. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'd think that a version of C++ would have at least some worthiness as far as WP:N goes, but google results are pretty iffy and since I'm not very sure about the notability, delete. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. C++ is a widely used programming language and it use within embedded software is growing. The MISRA C++ document contains a set of guidelines for the use of C++ in embedded software. Other people/companies/organizations have produced similar sets of guidelines. The notability of the MISRA guidelines can be gauged by the fact that a large number of static analysis tool vendors have put effort into supporting the MISRA guidelines (support for other documents is much rarer and not industry wide) and calling this fact out in their advertising. The fact that the MISRA article had been edited to read like advertising (earlier versions did not have this problem) is not a reason for deleting an article that shares an association. Derek farn (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have become aware that MISRA C is another article in the series. It also looks non-notable, and is closely related. Please comment on whether this should be deleted, or if the two articles should be merged, or kept. Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Neither appears to be notable. Variants of programming languages can be covered in the main articles, such asC++. Jehochman ^Talk 16:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand with my previous statement, delete (both), and/or redirect to Motor Industry Software Reliability Association. I did a cleanup on MISRA C, it does not have any suitable sources (all are connected to the organisation; though maybe two suitable external links ..), nothing except the first sentence seems notable enough to mention to me (but I am not a specialist in programming languages). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, per noms. --John (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ I am totally confused about why the above think both are non-notable. Google returns 33,600 matches. Where is one of the best places for an editor to go to cite sources but those provided by the organization that produced the documents? The list of members seems a bit pointless, ok so delete it. Derek farn (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remark: a Google test is not always the best measure for this (heh, having an entry in wikipedia does already increase that number). Derek farn, what about the following solution, we undelete the main article, Motor Industry Software Reliability Association, and move it your userspace (User:Derek farn/Motor Industry Software Reliability Association), and delete the redirect that results in mainspace. You rewrite (e.g. with the help of a wikiproject) the article into a neutral case, and when editors here are satisfied, it gets moved back into mainspace. The two articles we are discussing here become then redirects to that main article (along with some similar articles)? (By the way, did I say that the two articles we are discussing here have the same intro?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Beetstra; merge these into the main article and userfy. Good suggestion, Beetstra. I think it makes everyone happy. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the offer Dirk Beetstra. If I were to spend time writing Wikipedia articles I would probably spend it on other articles. I work in the area of static analysis and am aware of how notable MISRA C and MISRA C++ are, hence my arguing to keep them. MISRA is a bureaucratic organization that manages to waste lots of my time whenever I deal with them and I have no motivation to work on an article about them. I would be willing to help cut the articles back down to stubs. Derek farn (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 09:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Even if you delete this, my guess is it will be added back in a couple of months at the most. The working group just finished the C++ standard this summer (after 3 years), but the C++ variant has already been mentioned in some conference proceedings [1], and featured on embedded.com [2]. MISRA C is an older standard [3], so it should be discussed separately; likely there are more references for it. A few more references for the C++ one: tmworld.com [4], and two academic papers [5], [6]. VG ☎ 09:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO, the C++ article is best for this. As stated above, this is a tricky one. If delete is not a good outcome, I'd also support a merge. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both (C and C++). MISRA as a standard does deserve an article (like CMM has) but the two current texts contain no encyclopedically useful information. It is always better to start from a clean desk than to scare potential contributors with such garbage. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MISRA is not a standard, it's an organization. The standards are MISRA-C and MISRA C++. VG ☎ 14:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was not precise. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2008 (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.