Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heap pollution


 * 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   keep. Several of the delete !vote rationales (including the nomination) have been countered with the provision of sources herein and those added to the article, along with copy edits that have occurred to the article after the time of the AfD nomination. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Heap pollution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is not new, but is not yet complete enough to call a stub. It neither defines the meaning of heap pollution nor asserts notability. It should probably be moved to an incubator. Dfeuer (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero sources = original research. A few searches do not reveal any sources that can save it. CorporateM (Talk) 08:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It only defines the term (although not in a way that makes any sense to me) it does not explain the importance or significance of "heap pollution." By WP:Not a dictionary this article does not belong in WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (or merge into Generics in Java). This is a common technical problem (it is a FAQ) that crops up with generic (parametrized) types in Java. I added a ref verifying the definition. I have not been able to find multiple in-depth RS, so the topic seems to fail notability guidelines per WP:GNG. According to WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, merging of verifiable material is preferred to deletion. It seems appropriate to merge it into a section in the Generics in Java article. Update: Changing recommendation to keep following Lesser Cartographies' nice RS finds and AioftheStorm's article improvements. --Mark viking (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No attempt is made to comply with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at WP:GNG or otherwise.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I was able to track down the following sources: Two page description in the Java Language Specification, .  Half-page discussion with code sample in Beginning Java.  Two page discussion with code sample in Java 7 New Features Cookbook.  19 hits in the primary literature, including an extensive discussion in Stenzel 2008 (certainly WP:PRIMARY and very little in the way of citation counts, but this does establish the term exists outside of Java programming manuals).  I doubt this will ever hit WP:GA status, but (in my opinion) there are enough WP:RS to establish notability.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: I have edited the article so that heap pollution is defined and feel it now qualifies as a stub and should be kept as normal editing can improve this article, and its notability is established due to being discussed in the sources provided by Cartographies.AioftheStorm (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lesser Cartographies: the subject is indeed worth encyclopedic coverage as demonstrated. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments in favour of deletion appear to just be article quality concerns that have now been partially dealt with by editing. --Michig (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2014 (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.