Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RtlCreateUserProcess

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RtlCreateUserProcess

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

Delete per reasons listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZwTerminateProcess and other nominations in this series: lack of individual notability. Also per what Wikipedia is not: specifically, it is not a Windows API manual nor a comprehensive list of system calls. Keφr 13:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating (for the same reasons):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone has voiced their opinion, I will also add:

Keφr 17:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Wikipedia is not an API reference manual. JIP | Talk 03:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I've commented on a few of these, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines seem clear. Wikipedia is not a directory or a reference manual. There's no attempt to demonstrate these are special APIs beyond thousands of other API calls. If Wikipedia covers every element of a large group of "cookie-cutter" items, whether they're video games, cellphones, road junctions, pop songs, electronic components, people who've held minor office, there must be something beyond the routine "X is a Y". You need some history, third-party evaluation, critical comment, etc (WP:SNOWFLAKE). These articles merely give syntax and usage information and sometimes examples (and WP:NOTHOWTO may additionally apply here.) There are specific notability rules for certain things like geographical features and biological species that are more generous, but there's no specific rule for API calls. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as with Colapeninsula, I've commented on a few of the recent API cal AfDs. And as Colapeninsula nicely argues, there appears nothing notable about these particular API calls and we need more than routine mentions in API references to satisfy general notability guidelines. --Mark viking (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All These do not appear to be notable on their own. Jncraton (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All not how to. W Nowicki (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2013 (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.