Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dev-C++


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dev-C++

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability, just a lot of links to product's pages. Just-expired RfC on this issue petered out in a few days, but did not address the concerns about the sources. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google books shows that this is featured in several C++ books, including whole chapters in Liang's "Introduction to Programming with C++" and Yevick's "A first course in computational physics and object-oriented programming with c++" --Karnesky (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have confirmed Karnesky's findings. I strongly request the nominator do a more thorough search in the future before nominating another AfD. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * comment Thank you for your advice. I've not I think proposed it hastily: only after an RFC where a majority of editors doubted its notability, no sources were found (or at least none anyone thought worth adding to the article), two other editors suggested AfD and one Proded it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand HBG's passion: even the overly conservative search for "bloodshed dev-c++" (in quotes) leads to over 60 books, which should give one pause. But, I agree that you weren't overly hasty based on the RFC & that you acted in good faith.  It is not clear whether you agree to withdraw your nomination, based on the notability that is established by multiple books or whether you have additional objections that need to be addressed at AfD --Karnesky (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying to John Blackburne: I agree that you didn't propose the AfD hastily. However, reading the RFC you mentioned, the overwhelming substantial (IMO) comments questioned the thoroughness of the search for citations (as confirmed above by Karnesky). I don't mean to single you out in requesting a more thorough search (though I'm sure it came across that way, for which I apologize). Since I started following the software AfDs I've noticed that a fair number of the nominations don't include a search of GScholar and GBooks. Once I do this, I find that there are often many WP:RS citations. These are the AfDs I attend. (Probably most of the nominations here are appropriate (IMO), but certainly not all, as borne out by the GScholar and GBooks searches.) Also, as mentioned by Rilak in the RFC, a lack of WP:RS in an article is not a good reason to nominate the AfD. According to WP policy, the nominator should first look for WP:RS and improve the article if possible. AfD should not be used to get others to improve an article, but that's what I've seen here in many cases. (To prevent any misunderstanding, these comments are generalizations not specifically directed at you.) &mdash; Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why not add the sources to the article at this point? One is supposed to "feel free to edit the article". That is: Liang's "Introduction to Programming with C++" and Yevick's "A first course in computational physics and object-oriented programming with C++". That would appear to remove Blackburne's objections and improve the article. Brews ohare (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply: Feel free. I've been doing this for some articles recently, but I only have so much time available. I may be able to do it for this one later, but right now I'm at work. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep At least for the near future. Dev-C++ is still referenced in lots of tutorials and online material. I would rather like to see the text stating that it is outdated and a recommendation to switch to another one. I know this is not impartial, but it still is true. When next year C++0x (probably) the new language standard will be released it will not be possible anymore to use Dev-C++ for current C++ programming at all. Crabel (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2010 (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.