Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iomanip
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 keep for now, merging is an editorial decision. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Iomanip
Stagnant technical documentation of no relevance to the non-specialist community. It's difficult to see how anything could be added to the article to make it less like a piece of technical documentation. Prod template previously removed by article author. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is a poor nomination that has no basis in policy. Please familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and with the purpose of this project. We don't delete information because it is technical, or because it does not have relevance outside of a particular profession. (Consider all of the mathematical, agrichemical, botanical, and astronomical subjects that Wikipedia deals with, for starters.) Wikipedia is both a general and a specialist encyclopaedia. And a quick Google Books search on your part to see how this subject is covered in the literature will show you how this article can be expanded to a full article. Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't believe that a random part of the C++ standard library warrants inclusion, and I'd put money on the majority of literature on the subject coming from C++ programming reference manuals. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with that policy, too, and read what it actually covers and addresses. It does not cover this, which is an encyclopaedia article about a subject — a subject that those reference manuals (References manuals written by programming experts are perfectly fine sources.) document in depth. Please adhere to our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- My comment stands. In fact, the parent article (C++ standard library) is also an almost content-free appendix to C++ which should be rolled back into the main programming language article. Anyway, I feel the subject is worth discussion, what with the failure over the last 12+ months of any of these articles go get beyond manual-reiteration status. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment is not based on the actual policy, nonetheless. In addition to all of the policies that I recommend that you familiarize yourself with, I recommend that you also familiarize yourself with our Wikipedia:Editing policy. There is no 12 month deadline for articles to be completed by. I strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with all of these policies. Your arguments have no bases in them at all. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- My comment stands. In fact, the parent article (C++ standard library) is also an almost content-free appendix to C++ which should be rolled back into the main programming language article. Anyway, I feel the subject is worth discussion, what with the failure over the last 12+ months of any of these articles go get beyond manual-reiteration status. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with that policy, too, and read what it actually covers and addresses. It does not cover this, which is an encyclopaedia article about a subject — a subject that those reference manuals (References manuals written by programming experts are perfectly fine sources.) document in depth. Please adhere to our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't believe that a random part of the C++ standard library warrants inclusion, and I'd put money on the majority of literature on the subject coming from C++ programming reference manuals. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletions. —Littleteddy (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and expand- iomanip is so ubiquitous that I have little doubt it could be expanded into a real article if someone had the time and inclination. --Storkk (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Articles about software and libraries should not be how-to manuals or lists of member functions. Prose on the encyclopedic aspects (its reason for existence, history of development, criticisms, any news events it played a role in, etc.) would presumably overlap heavily with the main STL article. cab (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- We have a word for an article that isn't complete yet. It is "stub". This article is clearly marked as one. I suggest that you go and review the literature, and see how much has yet to be written on this subject in Wikipedia, before opining about overlap. Wikipedia is not finished. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is the boilerplate inclusionist excuse for almost any subject. The likelihood that an article on a random set of function declarations in the C++ standard library is going to be eventually blossom into an accessible description of a notable subject is extremely low. Not all stubs are made equal; some have potential and some don't. This doesn't. It should be deleted, along with its sibling articles, in favour of a more general and less technical approach to the subject matter at C++ standard library. If the C++ standard library article fails to evolve, it too should be deleted and rolled back into C++. Pre-supposing how the encyclopedia will develop by prematurely stubbing articles which are unlikely to ever improve is a bad idea because it encourages duplication of effort. Articles should grow organically outwards from key concepts and be split when they overreach. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- We have a word for an article that isn't complete yet. It is "stub". This article is clearly marked as one. I suggest that you go and review the literature, and see how much has yet to be written on this subject in Wikipedia, before opining about overlap. Wikipedia is not finished. Uncle G (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to C++ standard library. Agree with nom that this would be better as a part (a very small part) of C++ standard library, which isn't exactly bursting at the seams anyway. Could theoretically be a search term though. Recury (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We are a comprehensive encyclopedia, comprehending a large number of specialist communities--for each of us, some material will be too detailed to be useful. If it can be deciphered by more general readers, it belongs here. This article is reasonably clear to anyone who knows anything bout programming, and that probably includes tens of millions of people. DGG (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've got a CS degree and still don't see why what amounts to high-level API documentation belongs on Wikipedia. My shopping list this week is reasonably clear to most English speakers on the planet, but I don't think it's particularly useful to anyone except people who are doing my shopping. Notability is not Google hits and articles are not included solely in terms of notability anyway. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki part and merge rest—Yes, it is another of my "complicated solutions" comments. I sympathize with DGG and Uncle G on the matter of inclusion of content. However, I think that the detail in the table is better suited for Wikibooks and the remaining (expanded) stub would best sit as a section in C++ standard library. The specific Wikibook I have in mind is Understanding C++. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 21 December 2007 (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.
