Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process Environment Block
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Process Environment Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was proposed for deletion by User:Ironholds, who claimed it's about a Win32 data structure that is no more notable than any other Win32 data structure. I then deleted the article once the proposal for deletion period had expired. The author later contacted me to ask for it to be undeleted. I personally think User:Ironholds is right, that the data structure is hardly specially notable, but the author has a steadfast opinion that the data structure deserves its own article, so I have undeleted the article and nominated it for deletion as advised at WP:DRV. My vote is weak delete. JIP | Talk 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to very weak delete (if there is such a thing). I'm still not convinced this particular data structure is notable, but the recent changes to the article have improved it at a lot. JIP | Talk 19:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Ironholds was 100% correct. Wikipedia is not a list of technical specifications, or a repository of source code, or a Win32 reference manual. Reyk YO! 22:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant features of really major computer programs are notable. The article is not a "list of technical specifications" nor "source code". There is an overlap between the detailed information in a reference manual and the summaries in an encyclopedia. This seems the appropriate level of detail. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'd call this a significant feature as primarily a private, mostly undocumented data structure, however the article has changed radically since the initial listing here [1] --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There seems to be enough info in RSs to write a good article, since it's pretty good now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - articles like this make Wikipedia more useful and relevant. I'd like to see it mature before we decide to delete it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2010 (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.