- 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 except signature updates.
The result was delete. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Erics device (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Written by a user called 'Eric des Courtis', and seems to be an advertisement for some sort of code. MixSup? 23:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not so much an advertisement as a chunk of function header. Would be appropriate for a programming website, but not for an encyclopedia. Bagheera (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this is a new method for effectively reducing the size of scanners using the C language. How does this article differ from Duff's device for example?
I agree that function headers can be removed if necessary.
How do I meet the requirements for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.des.courtis (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not surprised you disagree. You wrote it, right? However the question isn't about other articles, it's about this one and the article about it. In this case, there is a description of a C function you developed but no indication of the significance beyond your claim that it's special in some way. If this were developed and was seeing wide use, and you could document references to it in other programming manuals or other sources to establish its notability, it would be fine. As it stands, there's nothing to establish notability and function references aren't in of themselves appropriate for Wikipedia. As I said above - it would be great on a programming site. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless this has previously been published in a credible source elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a CS journal; new techniques should be published first elsewhere. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What would qualify as a credible source?
- Understood, I will post the article once it has been published by credible sources. Will the work I have done be lost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.des.courtis (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as you are concerned, it will be lost. So copy the wikitext to your own machine! If you repost, we will not want the C code. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, I will post the article once it has been published by credible sources. Will the work I have done be lost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.des.courtis (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All original research and the code doesn't seem like anything particularly special so the claims that it was discovered recently are a little far fetched and unsourced. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 6 March 2008 (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.