Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bresenham's line algorithm C code

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete. Rje 01:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Bresenham's line algorithm C code
Same reasoning applies to four pages: Bresenham's line algorithm Delphi code, Bresenham's line algorithm Python code, Bresenham's line algorithm C code, Bresenham's line algorithm Visual basic code. All are just implementations of Bresenham's line algorithm. They might belong in a textbook on computer graphics (perhaps at Wikibooks), but are beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. (There already is an implementation in the Bresenham's line algorithm, to boot.) jdb &#x274b; 04:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep, the implementations are in different languages, and are simple enough for novice programmers to decipher. Very few other sites provide all these implementations, and when they do, the code is not simple.
 * Keep, I agree with the vote above. Besides, I found the code very useful when building a renderer, and the code isn't on Wikibooks (where the word 'Bresenham' draws a blank)-- TrojanSirius 02:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to move it to a book there. (Note that the last two votes were entered by IP 128.125.13.207 within fifteen minutes of each other). jdb &#x274b; 05:48, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 05:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The code is already explained in Pascal in the article on Bresenham's line algorithm. I do not understand why  you think it merits four additional implementations. It's like having four different recipies for fried flounder -- they might belong in the Wikibooks Cookbook, but not here. jdb &#x274b; 05:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I do have four recipes on fried flounder, but my vote was a mistake (wrong VfD article). I've struck it out. Megan1967 09:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopic. The algorithm has it's own page, different implementations aren't needed. JimmyShelter 09:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the code in the main article doesn't describe the algorithm clearly enough, improve it. Gazpacho 04:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I dont´t think a code listing by itself makes a relevante article. Perhaps these could be incorporated into the main article, or (better) on a Wikibook. --Marx Gomes 04:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Implementations of this algorithm in different languages aren't helpful. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * delete ComCat 01:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiSource. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)