Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C++ perfect numbers

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 delete per WP:SNOW, WP:NOT a code fragment repository. Salix alba (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] C++ perfect numbers

C++ perfect numbers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

C++ code fragment coding up obvious algorithm in obvious way; twice PRODed, PROD notice removed each time by same IP without rationale. WP:NOT a code fragment repository, and this does not seem to be suitable for merging into perfect number. The Anome (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree with nominator's rationale. I was the first prodder, and was about to bring it here when it was tagged with a transwiki. I don't know anything about WikiBooks, so I can't comment on whether it would be welcome there. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. This code can be placed at a suitable article. Such as Euclidean algorithm contains code from different languages to find GCD based on this algorithm. In a similar way we may utilize this one as well. But, standalone article? Absolutely nonsense. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ros0709 (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Convert to psudo-code and Move to perfect number --T-rex 15:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of disorganised information; it's useless and needs to go.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:NOT Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, do not transwiki, do not merge. In addition to the arguments above, the "obvious algorithm" is much slower than it needs to be: for numbers sufficiently small that this algorithm could be run within the lifetime of the universe, one would do far better by hardcoding a table of known perfect numbers and checking for the input's existence within that table. And of course it's hopeless for finding new perfect numbers. So both not encyclopedic and not useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without merge/transwiki. Buggy (claims that 0 and 1 are perfect numbers, which is incorrect), messy (there's an unused variable s, and the indentation is horrific), and unnecessarily system-specific (outputs "sh: PAUSE: command not found" on non-Windows systems). Zetawoof(ζ) 02:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
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.