Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multi-threading libraries

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 22:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-threading libraries

Has too much redlinks to be useful. This could be done more efficiently with a category. --R.Koot 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This comment will probably come too late, but... it is highly unlikely that articles will ever be written for the redlinks here, if someone does it would most likely get deleted because of non-notability. --R.Koot 23:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ --R.Koot 01:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. The people below me are right about my self-contradictory argument. But it remains a crappy article. --R.Koot 15:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change to abstain I'm not nearly smart enough to know what this stuff means. sorry. Hamster Sandwich 01:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - A category fails for this use exactly because it cannot list items which do not have articles. A list of such libraries is useful even if many of them do not have full articles unto themselves. -R. S. Shaw 02:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, off to a good start, and ditto RSShaw. Gazpacho 04:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, a useful article inasmuch as it creates wanted pages for undescribed libraries. Collabi 05:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, redlinks are useful, categories are not adequate replacements for lists. Kappa 05:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kappa and R. S. Shaw. A list like this can tell users what articles need writing. Mistercow 06:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lists are useful if prospective articles are all on notable topics. Capitalistroadster 07:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - Not sure... but basically this vote is probably useless since it's "Undecided"... >.< UniReb 07:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I don't know anything about the topic, but the nomination is self-contradictory, as we can't have a category for things which only exist as red links. Uppland 09:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator has retracted his original self-contradictory motivation, but there may be other arguments for deletion which I don't feel qualified to dispute, I'm changing my vote to abstain. Uppland 07:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I do understand the topic, and the article as it stands is useless, since it doesn't even mention what platforms (MacOS? Windows? Linux? Solaris? You-name-it?) it's talking about. Re-work it as aMulti-threaded computing' libraries stub with explanation of what it's talking about and it might be worth having. As it stands, delete it.
Delete. This kind of information is just too fluid and article would be unmaintainable. This may be useful list for specialised website. Instead of such lists Thread (computer science) would be better worked on - it is in rather messy state. (Btw, category would be even worse than the article.) Pavel Vozenilek 02:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oy, keep this, it's actually a very useful list. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity? What makes this list useful? --R.Koot 20:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a nice extensible list of multi-threading libraries all gathered in a single place. If I'm choosing a library for an application, that's the place to start. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 21:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an extremely useless list. I'm currently in the process of choosing a multi-threading library for an application, and this list gives me no useful information: it doesn't indicate platform, it doesn't indicate license, it doesn't indicate language, it doesn't indicate type of threads, it doesn't indicate library maturity, it doesn't indicate library homepage, and it isn't complete. --Carnildo 22:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}}! Seriously, though, half the battle is knowing the names of the libraries available. Google is your friend. This isn't a wiki by accident, you know. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Later: rewrite. I was in a generous mood so I've made a start on adding the attributes you mentioned. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 00:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a web directory. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 00:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you don't like the external links, just edit them out. No need to delete the entire article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refrain from commenting on ~~any~~ every vote that's not in concordance with yours. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. That would be silly. This is supposed to be a discussion; if we didn't comment on one another's votes there would be nothing relevant to discuss. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I do not agree with your vote, I completly agree with that. --R.Koot 10:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that was badly said. I see now that what I wrote had very little in common with what I was thinking! =P What I meant was "Tony why do you have to pipe up on every vote that is different than yours?" Using "any" makes that sound like something entirely different, sorry. However, I still think that perhaps Tony could leave a little more room for others to make their input, and let freedom of speech have less of a volume factor. Is that more clear? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - m:Wiki is not paper. There have been four delete votes on this discussion, and I've commented on two of them: on one discussing a rewrite that was directly prompted by some criticism of the article made by that editor; on a second edit, which gave as a rationale the argument that Wikipedia isn't a web directory, I commented that the web aspect of the article could be omitted entirely while still leaving a useful article. This is useful discussion, Aaron. It's part of what we're here for, not endless bickering about how some people have more to say (and have done more edits on the article in question) than others. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --BMF81 21:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with the Thread article. --Naked Singularity 07:50, 12 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.