Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hello world programs


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP, with possible transwiki too. -Splash talk 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

List of hello world programs, Hello world program in esoteric languages and Fibonacci number program
Wikipedia is not a source code repository. Unencyclopedic, valueless. Worth even less than other lists of implementations that have been deleted. --Mgreenbe 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think the purpose of this list is to serve as a code repository, but rather as an illustrated overview of different programming languages. The hello world program has a long tradition in introductions to specific programming languages. Even if this list is judged to be an unencyclopedic topic, its contents should first be merged into the individual programming language articles. I'm not sure what "other lists of implementations" the nominations is referring to. If this is part of a systematic effort, perhaps a centralized discussion may be better. If not, this list can be judged on its own merits. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Update for amended nomination: I agree that "hello world" programs are generally too trivial to be of much pedagogical value. However, hello world programs have an established tradition, which should not be ignored completely. So let's either keep one list of "hello world" programs (merge the two "hello world" lists) –OR– merge all "hello world" programs into their respective PL articles and delete both "hello world" lists. Furthermore, let's keep the list of Fibonacci programs, since they illustrate the workings of a programming language (assignment, conditionals, recursion/iteration) much better. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge where appropriate then delete "hello world" and redirect "fibonacci" to Hello world program. A hello world programs makes a notoroisly bad example to demonstrate the syntax of a programming language and therefore they have little encyclopedic value thrown together in a list. The hello world program should belong in the article of its respective programming language. —Ruud 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Fibonacci number program for now as they contain some interesting ways to calculate Fibonacci numbers which should be merged into Fibonacci number first. —Ruud 00:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe Fibonacci number program was split off from Fibonacci number because the latter is already quite long and the algorithmic aspects are really a separate issue. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to WikiBooks. It's not encyclopedic, regardless of utility; the main article for each language ought to have a reasonable example, but there's no need to have the same program a hundred times &mdash; more often than not, it's better to see an example of a program that utilizes the important features of a given language, rather than a silly (if conventional) stub.    For more discussion of source code in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quicksort implementations (which was successful).  --bmills 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiBooks. Do not delete! These had been ed, which I think was a bit unfair on the many editors who'd worked on them, in good faith. I do think they have value - not all of the examples are "stubs", and it's useful for cross-referencing. However, I agree that they are not necessarily suitable for WP, but strongly support their transfer to WikiBooks. Camillus (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful to have, useful to readers, and that's what matters here. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Utility isn't all that matters, though. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a code repository or a programming tutorial or a language shootout.  If you believe the content is useful, why not let it be useful in a more appropriate WikiMedia project (like WikiBooks)?  --bmills 02:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepThis article should stay where it is because nobody goes to wikisource or wikibooks. Wikipedia is far more popular. A Clown in the Dark 04:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that people go to Wikipedia doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is not the place for unencyclopedic information. If it's really important to you that people read the list of hello world programs, why not transwiki the list to WikiBooks and add a link at the Hello World program article?  --bmills 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep List of Hello World programs per Adrian and A Clown in the Dark. &mdash;ERcheck @ 04:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd normally vote to transwiki to WikiBooks or WikiSource, but this AfD was just a WP:POINT. --Karnesky 05:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically, see Mgreenbe's comment in Articles for deletion/99 Bottles of Beer computer program 2. I guess he couldn't wait for someone else to AfD?! --Karnesky 05:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * On reflection, a transwiki is still proper, but I don't like how this popped up on AfD! --Karnesky 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would've AfD'd it anyway &mdash; it was on my list to AfD when I got some free time, along with all of the other non-encyclopedic "list of program implementation" pages I could find. --bmills 02:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep / Transwiki. Useful information. -- Evanx (tag?) 08:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki. Mainly Delete. Dsol 10:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing wrong with an encyclopaedic entry for what is one of the most popular aspects of programming the world over. Wanyonyi 10:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There already is an encyclopedic entry for Hello World program, and List of hello world programs isn't it. --bmills 17:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Transwiki -- mkrohn 23:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Add link in encyclopediac context since "hello world" is a famous implementation although actual source is not. &mdash;  Dz on at as  23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keepJames 23:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep / Transwiki. Informative & deserves a place here or WikiBooks (perhaps with an External Link on the Hello world program page?) IronSwallow 23:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - What have you been smoking? This is a valid, useful article, this kind of articles make wikipedia different. I don't know why it was listed. Afonso Silva 13:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource. Note that wikisource requires previous publication only for source text, not code. I do not think these articles would be useful at WikiBooks. - Liberatore(T) 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The two hello world articles might warrant merging to Hello world, though that is up for deletion. We need to decide what to do with novel source code that has value like this--some in WikiSource don't want it, but it still gets pushed there from here & from WikiBooks (and WB isn't a good option either). --Karnesky 20:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply I does belong on Wikipedia, just not in a list but in the articles of the respective programming language. If we put it there we can be sure it stays there and is looked after. —Ruud 20:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, keep, delete (or transwiki or whatever) I consired first two encyclopedic, in fact I got here by looking for list of Hello, World programs. The third is maybe a bit too much... --Dijxtra 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can I convince you to change the last one to a transwiki? It is actually a requested aricle at  --Karnesky 22:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, copy it there then! AfD doesn't stop you to do that, right? --Dijxtra 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If the conensus is to Keep the article, I see no reason to transwiki: why have it in both? Similarly, a consensus of deletion suggests to me it has no value & wouldn't belong on WikiSource either.
 * Nonononono. This content isn't encyclopaedic. That doesn't mean it's not worth being put to wikisource. It's just it isn't fit for Wikipedia. --Dijxtra 11:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (Mostly:I don't how the whole page history that we need to keep for GFDLs would work if this were deleted & I'm lazy enough to want the admin to transwiki it if that is what is decided or to leave well enough alone if it is kept on WP) --Karnesky 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki per nom. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Transwiki. Keep is more appropriate for the first article, Transwiki is probably better for the other two. I agree that this content is somewhat questionable, but the first article is actually useful as an illustrated index of many programming languages. -- bethenco 18:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, transwiki, transwiki. While Wikipedia is not a source code repository, the list of hello world programs does provide an excellent summary of the various well-known languages at a glance. Frankly, I don't see how it falls under WP:NOT; nothing's been asserted other than "it's unencyclopaedic!" --moof 08:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, including lists of quotes, lists of phone numbers, and lists of programs that all do approximately the same thing. &mdash;donhalcon〒 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * However, the list of languages is not indiscriminate. Also, see the discussion at Village_pump_%28policy%29. --moof 15:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The list of languages isn't, but the list of hello world programs written in them is. It doesn't provide any information that an intelligent reader couldn't infer from the articles on the languages themselves.  The question isn't whether the programs are informative (that point is largely irrelevant); rather, the question at hand is whether they belong in an encyclopedia.  &mdash;donhalcon〒 15:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki bogdan 15:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per MarkSweep or transwiki. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 13:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: this page has, in fact, no value as a code repository (every programmer knows how to write an "Hello, World" program in his/her favourite language), but gives a valuable classification of programming languages, and could also be used to recognize an unknown (to the user) language. Very often in a good enciclopedya you can find tables with similar pourpose, I also suppose that the page was contribuited by many people giving it an high value according to Wikipedia parameters, Wed Mar 1 16:51:15 CET 2006 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.205.159.53 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Number of contributors has no bearing on whether a given article belongs in an encyclopedia. As for the classification of programming languages &mdash; if the entries are supposed to show what a particular language looks like, they should go in the article for that language.  If they are intended to compare programming languages, then there needs to be some encyclopedic text that actually explains the comparison rather than just a bunch of (unsourced) programs of varying degrees of correctness; stand-alone source-code is almost certainly a violation of WP:NOR.  &mdash;donhalcon〒 16:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I find this article fully enciclopedic and adequate, only its name is misunderstanding. I would call it just "esoteric programming languages", if that's the term coined for this kind of languages.


 * Keep: Usefull for understanding different programming languages. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have used this page not only to convey the scope and idea of "syntax" to non-coders, but also as a way of illustrating the breadth and flexibility of the "Hello, World!" concept. Once people hit this page they "get it".  They are not using the page as a "code repository".  And besides being useful, it's fascinating.  I consider it like seeing the different "currencies of the world" or equivalents to "Hello" in other languages.


 * Keep: As stated it's an illustrated overview of programming languages, and Hello World is a well known introductory technique. This page is useful.


 * Keep: Wikipedia is not a printed encyclopedia where you have to save pages. The article gives a good overview how simple (or complicated) programming languages handle such a simple task. -- Hans Bauer 13:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that there are "Hello world" wikipedia artikles in 28 languages. Almost all of them contain big lists with program examples of hello world programs. This shows that in 28 languages the people think that a list of "hello world" programs belongs in wikipedia. IMHO the quality of wikipedia cannot be raised with excessive deletions (e.g: In the german wiki they sometimes "delete like crazy", but the english articles are still better most of the time). Still voting for Keep -- Hans Bauer 14:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * lrrp it is useful. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 15:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and make sure this info is removed from the main artlce. Hello world is getting quite long. This is just a subarticle of Hello world program which was notable and verifiable but just got long. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:40, 3 March 2006 (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.