Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examples of fork bombs

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of fork bombs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable subject (fork bombs are notable, but a list of examples isn't). Page was apparently created to end a content dispute / editing war at the main fork bombs page, but we ar not a list of code snippets, and the problems of another page should be solved at that page, not by creating forks (sorry). Fram (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Fram says, a list of examples is not notable, and all this one shows is what looping constructs look like in different languages. There might be a reason to include one example in Fork bomb but certainly not a list, and the title is not a plausible search term, so a redirect would not be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no way to just "include one example" at the main page -- it's been tried several times, and every single time, it resulted in language fanboys swooping in and adding "just one more". You'll never get anyone to agree on the one (no, it should be two / what are you talking about, these three languages are the best / hay guys what about $ESOLANG) example that gets included there.

Perhaps the solution is to delete this page as per nom, include zero examples at the main page, and include an external link to a page where people can look up example. (Except then everyone will want to add just one more link to their favorite site...) 180.39.86.69 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: How about including a few examples in most notable programming languages with respect to the topic and not allowing to add any more? This is how it's done in the articles in other languages.

This is what I wrote on the talk page:

I created the article because there was a war between editors about the readability vs. informativeness and understandability of the original article. I further explained this on the talk page. The article originally included some examples and, IMHO, it made the article more easily understandable because they illustrated the point exactly, but then the example list grew and the article became more and more cluttered and unreadable. I cleaned it up several times, but people were still adding and removing the examples (as seen in the history page I provided above). My solution was to create a separate page about it, similar to what's done in the articles about other fields. Also, if you check out the interwiki links, the vast majority of articles in other languages have examples included.

— Giorgi Gzirishvili (T · C), 21:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge/redirect to appropriate section of fork bomb).

I partially disagree with the nomination. If the only policy reasons to not include a lengthy list of examples in the main article was cluttering, then a WP:SIZESPLIT would warrant a separate article even if the subsubject was not notable.

However, there is a policy reason not to include a lengthy list of examples. If editors of fork bomb cannot agree on a few languages (I would say at most three) to put, then too bad, we will have zero examples. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: The point is, there has been no debate on this topic; 180.15.182.119 just blanked the section after writing on the talk page. Thanks for noting about WP:AVOIDSPLIT § Non-notable topics; agreed. — Giorgi Gzirishvili (T · C), 19:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, a sizesplit may never be done if the resulting new article is on a subject that is in itself not notable. This simply means that the split should be undone and the material trimmed, as it is a case of WP:UNDUE (you have too much information to keep it in the main article, even though not enough significant attention has been given to the separate subject? Then summarize, don't split). A split article should be on a notable topic (say, a specific battle split of from a larger war article), or a list of mainly notable topics (like a discography split of from an artist article: if none or only one of the albums are notable, then a separate discography page is probably not warranted: but if you have five or ten notable albums, then a discography list of albums is a good split). Fram (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for a supporting policy quote proved me I was wrong. My apologies. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Fram (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTHOWTO is relevant here but more importantly, there's no indication that any of these examples are notable. The generalized list of sources at the end just links to example code snippets. There's no assertion that any one code snippet has been used in, say, a notable DDoS attack or anything. Bare programming examples are not notable without context to establish why they are significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.