Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mbrlen

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. Discussion and/or more nominations of the other related articles is probably in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mbrlen

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it", per WP:Patent nonsense. Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 04:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect to Bulldog73, this poorly-written article is not patent nonsense; instead, it is an attempt to describe a feature of the C computer programming language. I was able to figure this out in less than a minute using a smart phone, and I am by no means a programmer. Accordingly, it's not patent nonsense. I will leave it to actual programmers to determine whether or not the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not patent nonsense, just poorly written. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 12:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree: this is not patent nonsense. It successfully conveys the ideas that this is a command in the C programming language (though I can see it's vague on what it does or what it's for. I presume it is explaining the syntax and arguments the command takes. But Wikipedia is not a programming language manual. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not a manual. Its not accurate anyway, since it is not really a language feature but specific to a library that supports certain variable-width encoding of character sets. W Nowicki (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question there seem to be quite a few similar articles (see List of C functions). Are we going to propose deleting them all? --Kvng (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep and cleanup. In fact this article is better than some of the stubs created by this project. I agree with the "not a manual" argument but it does seem well established that each function in the C standard library is allowed an article (or at least a redirect to one article covering a group of related functions). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where/how has that been established? --Kvng (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a programming language manual. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:40, 8 September 2011 (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.