Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fgetws

: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 no decision. As Ruud suggests, it would probably be best to deal with these all at once. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

=[[Fgetws]]=

:{{la|Fgetws}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Fgetws}})

A single function in C is probably not encyclopaedic; also there is very close paraphrasing / copy-paste from other sources (including those in external links) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect to ~~fgets~~ or maybe C file input/output and integrate anything worth keeping. I just recategorised this and a bunch of other brief man-page-like articles from :Category:C programming language to C standard library that could probably also be merged and redirected. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 08:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC).

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge+Redirect to fgets. Closely related, avoids duplication. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Or Transwiki per Ruud. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Deletion precedent. It is probably not a good idea to nominate these articles individually. They should probably be ranswiki'ed/merged/redirected/deleted/... en masse. —Ruud 09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC).
Totally agree. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep, it's useful. --82.27.132.19 (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:ITSUSEFUL --Cybercobra (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
There are many C function articles on wiki. So what's the harm in keeping it? If the writing is not found to be worth of, discussions can be done to improve it Pranav Manghat (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete. This particular article adds nothing to what would be found in a programming manual. Why is the function notable? Is it controversial? Does it have an interesting history? Is it implicated in a scandal? These things do happen in programming language development but no evidence of anything significant here.--Northernhenge (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2011 (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.