Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E STRICT


 * 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

E STRICT

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a PHP manual —C.P. (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , , , , and . Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your references are just PHP manuals, so it doesn't address the point of this AfD. (Or perhaps you just made a lapsus and wanted to write "Delete" instead of "Keep"?) —C.P. (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline that says that it isn't allowed. Saying if they show notability or not can only be based on someone's opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These are just books on PHP, and it is normal that "E_STRICT" are found in them. It is not clear that it could be immediatly deduced that E_STRICT is notable and/or should have an article in Wikipedia: otherwise every common function and constant of the PHP language would be notable and/or could have an article in Wikipedia. —C.P. (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Notability and WP:NOT. (To Joe Chill's objections above: notability requires mention in works independent of the subject.  Mentions of a PHP variable in books about PHP are not independent of the subject.  It might be notable if E_STRICT were mentioned in books about other programming languages, for instance as a concept that was widely copied by name or inspired the design of other programming languages.)  Change all links to this article from other articles to http://www.php.net/manual/en/errorfunc.configuration.php#ini.error-reporting (a PHP-specific site which covers E_STRICT in more detail). Winged Cat (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Has coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Saying that books whose primary subject is PHP can't be used to establish notability for an aspect of the language, is like saying that you can't use a bird handbook to establish notability of a bird. decltype (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, although the article seems to be well intentioned. To me it seems like "E STRICT" is pretty much the same thing as a word, in a programing language rather than English. I am certainly no expert on such things but I think the spirit of "WP is not a dictionary" applies here. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per NWgnome: individual commands in programming languages don't really seem to pass NOT:DIC. Multiple independent dictionaries give plenty of coverage to individual words, but we don't consider most words notable by themselves, and likewise we shouldn't treat PHP manuals as making this word notable by themselves.  If sources that didn't generally deal with PHP commands were to discuss this topic, it would be different — just like we have articles about words when the words themselves are the subject of coverage — but without that, this shouldn't be treated as worthy of an article.  Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete DicDef. Miami33139 (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - the "dic-def" argument is plausible; also, I think this detailed exposition of a particular programming command comes under Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or textbook. JohnCD (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (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.