Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of C-family programming languages (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Soft keep. based on the discussions and more importantly because this AFD is not actually transcluded properly (probably since the relisting). KTC (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

List of C-family programming languages
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The list is factually inaccurate. There has been little improvement since the last AFD nomination in April and since then multiple editors have recommended deleting the article on its talk page. Sizeofint (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , you may be interested in this discussion. You posted on the article talk page regarding nominating for deletion a few months ago. Sizeofint (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and Improve I'm not familiar enough with the details of programming languages to address the nom's assertion of inaccuracy, but as an AfD issue -- problems of content and accuracy should be solved on the page by seeking and applying consensus, not brought to AfD. There are numerous citations at the bottom of this list (although zero in-line citations which is extremely poor form given past allegations of original research) so an argument of WP:CITE or WP:V would need some details before being considered. Likewise, as most of the listed items on this page have their own pages, I would presume most of them pass general notability, weakening any argument for WP:N.  Beyond those problems with an AfD argument, I see that the previous AfD nomination resulted in a "Keep" (as opposed to no consensus).  Basically, I'd very much like to see a cogent argument why this article should be up for AfD instead of being worked on and improved by interested editors. -Markeer 19:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of entries are unsourced and I suspect are original research. We can excise all the unsourced and poorly sourced entries but that leaves us with a list of maybe a half-dozen. It doesn't seem to me that there are many (any?) editors interested in improving this list. I am beginning to wonder if there is such a thing as a "C-family" of programming languages. More accurate lists would be "List of programming languages similar to C" or "List of programming languages derived from C" but I don't think they would look anything like what we have currently. Sizeofint (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to C (programming language) where the influence of C on other languages can be described in proper prose (yes, that section needs fixing). The scope of this list is impossible to pin down, as Dennis Ritchie and James Gosling have pointed out. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 22:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * support redirect Dannyniu (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure basically but I would say if there's not much for a better separate article, then Redirect for now. Notifying 1st AfD commenters, and  as I think this will need further comments for a consensus.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * delete per original AfD nom.
 * I'm against a redirect, because if this whole article can't make the inclusion clear, I doubt if it's going to be handled much better by a section elsewhere. The problem is with those inclusion criteria, not the prose of this current article. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This nomination doesn't provide a valid reason for deletion: that the article hasn't been significantly improved in eight months is irrelevant. Regardless of the current state of the article, this is a notable topic. A cursory examination of Google book and scholar results shows that there is, beyond dispute, a C family of programming languages (themselves a part of the Algol family). Determining precisely what the inclusion criteria should be used can be solved through discussion, and I'm convinced that a clear standard for inclusion could easily be developed. Pburka (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion is inherited from the first AfD. The languages here are not "C family", they are merely a rag-bag of random choices based on the trivial lexical use of curly brackets, rather than any inheritance from a C-originated line of development. There are some "C family" languages (C++ and Object C most obviously). However that's not what this article is listing. This article is making unsourced selection of languages based on very minor factors of their appearance, rather than deep underlying commonality and certainly not on the basis of RS describing them as "C family". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick search of "C-family programming languages" reveals that this is a well-established category mentioned in many books. If the article is inaccurate then that's an issue for editing, not deletion. Sbwoodside (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep a quick google search reveals that being a descendent of C is commonly used to describe languages. This is a notable topic. The fact that the article is currently not in the best of shape means it needs edited, not deleted. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As much as I dislike the structure and some of the questionable family entries on this page, I too believe this falls within Wikipedia's rules on Notability WP:GNG. If this article is removed from the articles for deletion I will go through and start picking through the languages and remove them one by one based on WP:GNG and to expand the introduction to more accurately explain the idea of the C programming language family as pointed out by Users, and  above however assistance would be appreciated. Andrdema (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article isn't at AfD on the basis of external notability, but on internal quality. It is listing the wrong languages.  If "C family" is a notable concept, that common factor is based on real shared development history between them, not just the fact that they use curly brackets to indicate block structure.
 * To exclude or delete members of such a set based on GNG would be wrong too. Firstly this is a list: there is simply no need for its members to meet GNG. The list overall must meet GNG, members do not. This is often a useful purpose for lists at WP. Secondly that would be to exclude entries for quite the wrong reason: they should be here or not for their "C familiness", not their relative notability or article quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You state that the to be part of the C family you must share "real shared development history between them" Which is incorrect. To be blunt I will assume you or others that might read this have no knowledge of C (See for a basic overview of what C is and the structures type system AND Syntax that defines C like languages).  However you are correct in stating that syntax alone does not define the language. As you may or may not know there are quite literally thousands of C like languages that are available. the fact that there is a completely separate wiki dedicated to only the weird and wild programming languages made by anyone that has an extra couple hours after their computer science homework can submit too (See  ) based off any c family language demonstrates the need for some lists to enforce WP:GNG within them. The idea that the content of a list and the list as a whole itself being Notable is at best weak. It begs the Question "If the content itself is not notable how can the list be?". If the languages are incorrect remove them. Deleting the page is the equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If there is so few languages left afterward that it then needs deletion do it then. You don't Throw out the Physics textbook when 1 chapter is incorrect. Andrdema (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, if you're going to start on the ad hominem demolition of other editors as incompetent on the subject in question, then start from a basis with better grammar, sentence structure and basic capitalisation. I've been hating C and its children for three decades now (C was an expedient hack to permit easy implementation - to prolong it into other dialects was a crime. Real programming languages have arrays. Better programming languages don't need them. C has neither.). I am, in the Wirthian sense, a lifelong quiche eater. Ask your grandparents to explain that one, if they were professional coders in the '80s. As to notability of list entries, see WP:LIST. I've no idea how long you've been here, but this is fairly fundamental to their editing. Also learn the difference in a programming language between parsing and lexing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I made no personal attack against you. I was blunt I don't pad sentences with feel good words or tiptoe around peoples feelings so do myself and yourself a favor and get over yourself. To be honest I'm not interested in you I'm interested in addressing your reply. As to the differences between lexing and parsing that is another field upon which you might argue whether a language is C like over another. If you want we can spend hours arguing the minutiae of C like languages and bring in new information the other never mentioned that has no value to add to the discussion. So how about you address the substance of what I said instead of continuing on with the holier than thou attitude as this AFD according to you is all about how the information is "factually incorrect". Andrdema (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2016 (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.