Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicrement


 * 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) 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Bicrement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; notability of a question in Stackoverflow.com is not clear; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide&#8212;it isn't desirable to have separate articles showing, trivially, how to add 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., to a variable in Java. This isn't the same situation as with increment, a primitive operation in both assembler language and many high-level languages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Previously tagged with PROD, removed by author. I can't say that this is suitably notable. It has a couple of mentions, but doesn't seem to have caught on very well. (You beat me at proposing this AfD) {{{sub|C}}  A S U K I T E  T} 01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - as far as I can see, this is a neologism that has circulated on forums and blogs, but is not in common use and not notable. Chris857 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why is this listed twice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erpert (talk • contribs)
 * I used twinkle page curation to nominate it for deletion, but somebody else did it at the same time, that's probably why. {{{sub|C}}  A S U K I T E  T} 12:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * weak delete I'm prepared to agree that this could be notable, if someone, somewhere has done serious work on a unary bicrement operation, its possible advantages, and that there is published sourcing to support this. However so far we have bicrement equated (incorrectly) with a commonplace binary addition of 2. That isn't original or notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as dictionary definition based no self-published sources. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:08, 9 October 2013 (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.