Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Bitdiddle

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Bitdiddle

Ben Bitdiddle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Delete - a character made up for math problems does not seem to me to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. The character does not appear to be the subject of any substantial or non-trivial works. Google hits appear to be nothing more than copies of problems he's mentioned in. Otto4711 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge With Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. It is a character, true, but he is not notable enough to have an article, but probably in there for a section. The Evil Clown _{Please review me!} 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought of that but according to the Bitdiddle article the character pre-dates the course so I'm not sure it's appropriate. Otto4711 01:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That may well be, but Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs is a real classic in computer science. It is by no means an obscure or uninfluential text. Much of the exposition reolves around a small group of characters, including others, such as Eva Lu Ator and Louis Reasoner ("loose reasoner"). The are most assuredly not just names chosen for the sake of the exercises, these characters are integral to the text. Greg Woodhouse 14:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't object to mentioning the character in the course article... Otto4711 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:INN. Unless there is something extremely unusual about the character or the situation they are in, the names of such characters are generally forgotten when you turn the page or change books. --Sigma 7 02:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's silly. Obviously this one is remembered by readers of the book and by students and professors in certain courses. Michael Hardy 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment That's silly. Obviously this one is remembered by readers of the book and by students and professors in certain courses. Michael Hardy 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What Sigma said. Philippe Beaudette 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Student life and culture at MIT, perhaps. Seems interesting, but compare the importance of Alice and Bob in terms of problem-set characters. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Teachers make up characters and character names all the time to illustrate various points - we don't need articles on each and every one. No notability at all. Waggers 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I smell a prank. Scienter 14:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Gandalf61 16:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing notable. Acalamari 18:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Dhartung. (Note to nominator: Consider {{prod}} before {{afd}} in the future; this entry could have been speedily deleted w/o incident.) --Aarktica 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm unclear as to why, when you want the article merged, you're suggesting that I ahould have tried to have the article speedily deleted. Otto4711 22:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The {{prod}} tag is very useful in avoiding the unnecessary and protracted discussion on such issues. Given the responses, it is quite possible that the deletion would have occured without incident. Aarktica 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Sigma 7, Waggers, and Scienter. Plenty of courses involve characters invented for their practice exercises, but that does not mean they all belong in an encyclopedia. - Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: And how did this survive for so long? Created in 2003? - Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Maybe because no one thought to look for such a nonsense name, especially since most of us came on board here since then. As for me, I vote delete. Realkyhick 07:02, 24 March 2007 (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.