Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooking


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooking

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article contains to many flaws to provide remotely useful information. Such flaws include (but not limited too) factual inaccuracy, POV, contains spam and cites no refs or sources.  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * &hellip; all of which are cleanup issues. Jfire was quite right.  The solution to all of the issues that you have with the article is for you to write content.  Deletion is not cleanup.  Writing the encyclopaedia, including fixing articles that you think to be bad, is not Somebody Else's Problem.  sofixit applies.  And that does not mean repeatedly nominating articles for deletion in place of using your edit button for actually editing content. As to the article, there are plainly scads of sources available for writing about hooking in computer programming, from books on the Windows Driver Model to Gordon Letwin's Inside OS/2 (which has a discussion of hooking on pages 31–32 and 125).  The problem with this article is the unwillingness of editors such as Promethean who see improvements that can be made to get out their edit buttons and actually make those improvements.  It is not anything that requires an administrator tool, and it is fixable even by editors without accounts, let alone by editors with accounts.  Keep. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup-- I'm not a programming expert and maybe I'm wrong, but various reliable sources are available to meet WP:N, 1, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As I said before and others have now echoed: cleanup does not require deletion, and needing cleanup is not a reason to delete an article. If you think it's factually inaccurate, POV, spammy, lacking sources, or otherwise incomplete, get in there and start working on the article. Jfire (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the view expressed by the people above. Fixing inaccuracies should be a priority since you seem to know something other people don't. Also, POV and spam can be removed through editing (either changes or removal) and apparently sources can be found. If you don't want to do the work yourself, dig up the most active contributor to the article, using the top left link on the history page or contact a relevant WikiProject for help. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Speaking as a programming expert is seems to be a reasonable stub article on the topic. Not sure what the fuss is about; the explanation is overly complex and perhaps focussed overly on the subject as it is applied in Microsoft's operating systems, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is unsalvageable. And having this article is, I think, better than having none. JulesH (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable encyclopedic topic with verifiable, third-party reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 16:11, 14 January 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.