Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyword in C sharp


 * 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   redirect to C Sharp Syntax. Seems to be agreement that the target article covers this content in a superior way. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Keywords in C Sharp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Very closely resembles nonsense Supertouch (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not quite nonsense, it's a list of the programming language keywords in the language named C# C Sharp (programming language).  Nonetheless, WP is not a programming language manual, and the list of keywords, even if cleaned up, is of no encyclopedic value.  --Joe Decker (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I still think it should be deleted but for different reasons- No context-hence my total misreading of the page, No substance, no explanation of the terms and it appears to have been abandoned. Supertouch (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree with your reasons as well. :)   --Joe Decker (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Never asserts notability. Article is of no encyclopedic value. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 07:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The nomination closely resembles nonsense. The topic is notable and I have added some content to demonstrate this. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. A partial (or complete, for that matter) list of keywords in a programming language serves no encyclopedic purpose. The note about contextual vs. reserved keywords can be merged into C Sharp (programming language) if anyone thinks it's significant. Hqb (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merger is not performed by deletion - please see WP:MAD.  I have added more cited material in accordance with our editing policy.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There was nothing in the original article worth saving; anything you added would have been better put in the main C# article in the first place. You'll note that not a single other programming language has a Wikipedia article dedicated solely to its keywords, and C# certainly isn't unusual enough in that respect to merit one. Hqb (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete (WP:CSD) as inferior dup of C Sharp syntax. Hqb (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good find - well done. You agree that the topic is encyclopedia now?  Note that the topic before us contains sources and content not found in that main syntax article.  A merge is indicated and I have amended my !vote accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Comment I don't agree it's notable.  The wikipedia notability criteria only apply to articles as a whole. An article must be notable, a part of a notable article need not by itself be notable.  A list of keywords might be appropriate in a putatively article on C# syntax if that article is notable even if the keyword list is not itself notable.  "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." as per WP:NOTE  --Joe Decker (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not demonstrated by internal references within Wikipedia; it is demonstrated by coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. I have added three good sources so far and so the notability of the topic is demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.  We have now moved on to consideration of merger with the other article which covers the same ground in a less well-sourced way. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete Nonsense and per Hqb. Yilloslime T C  05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: as it is apparent that Colonel Warden is an inclusionist why don't we merge the Keyword in C sharp with C Sharp syntax. The reality of this merge will be making the keyword page in a redirect to C Sharp syntax with at most a WP:SMERGE with whatever unique information that page has to offer (I compared the the Keyword list with one at Syntax and found the first 10 or so keywords present at both--therefore I don't think it is necessary to move any material. The Keywords page should be renamed prior to the redirect to Keywords in C Sharp. So basically I suggest:
 * 1) Renaming Keyword in C sharp Keywords in C Sharp
 * 2) Redirecting Keywords in C Sharp to C Sharp syntax after blanking the page (or cut-and-pasting what little unique info it has to offer) Supertouch (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * After 24 hours of no discussion I implemented my suggestion. Supertouch (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just read the AfD page again--I thought I had read it carefully--and I have realized I was extremely hasty and acted contrary to the established rules here. First of all, I apologize--this is my first time participating here--and secondly, after making a mess of things will leave this to the AfD veterans as opposed to undoing anything. Wow, did I really propose and then execute a double revert? Good thing a Bot fixed it shortly afterwards. Supertouch (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to your bold, sensible action and suggest that we leave it at that. All's well that ends well... Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I attributed the merged content and restored the article to avoid possible confusion from the redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Why not just leave the redirect?  The information fits better over there, no one objecting to it, and no information lost.  Its a more complete list over there.   D r e a m Focus  12:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be confusing if someone clicks the article link above and is redirected to a section in another article not nominated for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - as was already carried out. I'll note that the only material that was worth merging was that added after the AFD nomination, and without it, this would have been a clear delete for me as there was no material worth merging at the time the article was created. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete is possible per WP:Merge and delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 29 January 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.