Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ctime


 * 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 Convert to disambig.Cúchullain t/ c 16:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ctime

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated for deletion for the following reasons: — Loadmaster 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is incorrect and misleading.
 * The term ctime is not a commonly accepted programming term with the meaning described in the article.
 * The concepts it contains are adequately covered by several other articles, in particular, Unix time and time_t.
 * Delete Convert. I now think it would make more sense for "ctime" to be a redirect disambiguation page, since it has two distinct usages in computer programming. — Loadmaster 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've found two more possible meanings: 1) Microsoft's ATL/MFC CTime class, and 2) the CTime datatype in Haskell (which is the C time_t type). So I'm still leaning towards converting to a redirect disambiguation. — Loadmaster 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree. I had wondered about "ctime" when I placed a disambiguation note on it a while back. Itd be a bitch to find sources for it, since ctime is by far and away mostly used to refer to either the c++ library, or perhaps some other functions (that I saw when i googled it) that are time related, but not used in-sentence or explained. The article has no sources, so find them or delete. Fresheneesz 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. The article states that "ctime" is a particular integer -- I've only known "ctime" to mean the C++ library, and the integer is actually called the Unix time. Since the article provides no sources for this usage of "ctime", I'm inclined to think it's incorrect. –Sommers (Talk) 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "ctime" refers to the ISO C library function, which returns a string value, not an integer. The article discusses what is usually called the system time, Unix time, or time_t, all of which are covered in far better detail by their respective articles. The only other common meaning for "ctime" is the i-node change time in Unix-like filesystems. If this article were to be kept, that would probably be the only valid meaning of the term, making for a pretty trivial article. — Loadmaster 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete : "ctime" is the library call for formatting the current date as a string, and also the metadata change time from the stat(2) syscall &mdash; but as pointed out above, the article primarily describes it as Unix time which is misleading. -- intgr 07:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Convert to disambiguation between stat (Unix) and time.h. -- intgr 07:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. (Such a disambig page could also be re-created after deletion.) –Sommers (Talk) 11:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perhaps disambig or redirect. I've heard no valid reason for deletion. Incorrect, misleading, or non-standard contents is not a valid reason to delete. That covers the first two "reasons" for deletion. That the information is presented elsewhere is also not a reason to delete, though it may be a reason to disambiguate or redirect. Note that a google search for ctime turns up more than two million hits. This article should not be deleted. –RHolton ≡ – 13:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are only about 770 Google hits, if you follow the search to the last page. And it appears that all of the hits refer to the "ctime" function. So, as I said above, if "ctime" were retained as its own separate article, it would be rather short. I think a redirect disambiguation page makes more sense. — Loadmaster 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Past the fact that google hits mean almost nothing, ctime *does* exist, plentifully. The problem is that it is used to refer to time.h, not whatever the ctime article is about now. Obviously, if it were deleted, it would be a redirect to time.h, and if it were a disambiguation.. thats also a form of deletion - as in all the presumably incorrect information (all of it) on the page would be gone. Of course, a formal deletion isn't neccessary, just a change to a disambig or something. The history can be kept. Fresheneesz 23:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Convert to DAB. Much of this duplicates UNIX time. Some is software library-related.  DAB it. Shenme 21:19, 5 April 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.