Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visual C++ name mangling

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. There's clear consensus that this does not belong as a wikipedia article. It's less clear if it should just be deleted, or moved to someplace like wikibooks. For now, I'm just going to delete it, but if somebody wants to reuse the material in another project where it would be more appropriate, I'll be happy to restore and userfy it for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visual C++ name mangling

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

Does not meet general notability guideline, as most external links talk about name mangling in general. Not to mention the *four* cleanup tags at the top of the article. Pokajanje|Talk 04:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits on Google books, seems like WP:OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hmm, I find a lot of hits with Google books: [1] Christian75 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleanup tags have nothing to do with the question whether an article should be deleted or not. I don't find deletion arguments here, but only arguments for editing the article. Yes, it needs editing. (BTW, that an article like this relies on a single source would be no problem.)

@Piotrus: No hits on Google books, seems like WP:OR Er ... do you even understand what this article is all about? ʘx (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I simply can't find any other sources on the matter, unless we can find quite a few more reliable sources I don't believe there's any hope for it. Kharkiv07 ^Talk 18:26, 18 March 2015

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting information, but with little to no third-party references, it appears to be out of scope of Wikipedia. Consider moving to Wikibooks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Rosoft (talk • contribs)
Move. There is just nowhere else to find this information, but as a programmer, I can assure you it is correct. Even clang uses the same values. --72.219.133.104 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Yes, this information should certainly be transwiki'd to somewhere without a policy against OR. —SamB (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The answer to "But this is something that insiders in the know know about" isn't "... so that means we need to figure out some way to shoehorn it in anyway." It's "... which means since the subject fails the GNG and WP:V, an article can't be sustained." Period. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Name mangling#How different compilers mangle the same functions, where it is mentioned. Name mangling itself is a notable topic, but this is about the mangling conventions of a particular compiler. There exists an authoritative source that incompletely describes these conventions at MSDN, and more complete reverse-engineered descriptions at Agner Fog's site and by Micael LeSane and Tokigun. Of these, Agner Fog is a well-respected expert on language internals and I consider his document a reliable source. So there is verifiability, but not notability per WP:GNG. The detail in this article could be usefully transwikied to Wikibooks, perhaps to the Compiler Construction wikibook. On Wikipedia, a redirect to the mention in Name mangling#How different compilers mangle the same functions seems reasonable and of due weight, along with a merge of reliable sources like the MSDN page and Agner Fog's document. --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2015 (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.