Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overwriting (computer science)


 * 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 as a WP:DICDEF. RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Overwriting (computer science)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Straightforward violation of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The sole reference in the article is to a random online dictionary. This is already covered at wikt:overwrite. There is no encyclopedic topic to be had here or prospect for expansion; the actual encyclopedic topic is already covered at computer memory. I would also be okay with a redirect to computer memory (or, possibly, merged to a tiny stub at Glossary of computer software terms or the like, perhaps). Would have just boldly redirected & merged but there was opposition to a redirect as well on the talk page and a removed prod. While this term of course comes up in reliable sources, it's always as part of a larger topic; "overwrite" itself is just a normal English word. Note that Writing (computer science) isn't an article (nor should it be) of which this is just a special case of. SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging talk page participants in the RM as well as objector who removed the prod: .  SnowFire (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to computer memory. Clover moss  (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: (as the dePRODer) To be clear the article is not fit for mainspace in is current state, its even more horrific points to it.  I dePRODed it because I see, on quick scan, a possibility of a useful WP:HEY.  To quote the nominator on my talk page, albeit in a different context, "editors are not psychic nor expected to be", any possibly may not be able to envisage how someone else might HEY the article, so "no encyclopedic topic to be had here or prospect for expansion" might be a little bit of an assertion that could end up being disproved.  I refute the topic is covered at computer memory; mainly because the article in its current state is somewhat confused whether its about "computer storage" or "computer memory", and I'd contend the topic can encompass both.  I read the PROD as already being controversial in the talk, with someone at some point seeming to indicate preference for AfD; hence a confidence in dePROD.  As the result of the dePROD I looked at the possibility of doing an AfD but as I felt it could be improved I couldn't pass a BEFORE myself (though no object and in fact expecting someone else to give to take to AfD.  I search for a template such as "This is a basket case article at moment" wikipedia warning template but the best I could manage was a very poor cn before I gave up.  To stress a point, I am strongly not in favor of it remaining in mainspace in its current state.  I'll also be giving a strong oppose to computer memory as a target as it because can also refer and be relevant to computer storage (Per the categories). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Would you find a redirect to one of the various glossary articles acceptable then?  E.g. Glossary of computer software terms or Glossary of computer science?  (I'd lightly prefer the first since the second seems to restrict itself to topics with articles only.  SnowFire (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. I really don't like the name Overwriting (computer science) as it can refer to several different concepts/topics and either needs to be an encyclopedic article or point to or be a DAB (or Glossary) page; and it might end up disrupting that glossary if it went there.  The first glossary suggested seems to be a basket case as is and shouldn't be entertained at present. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can I suggest someone with less fingers in the pie than me pragmatically closes the move discussion on the article page 1: As it can and should now be discussed in a single place here if necessary. 2: Because of recent changes to and .  Overwriting was changed by elseone to a DAB and I've redirected previous redirects to Overwrite to here ... good luck if you've followed this but I'd suggest to simply look at the content of the current page in this discussion and not go off topic on Overwrite/Overwriting DABs/redirects.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: I've decided not to try to develop this as a article. The current content seems, as I have indicated before, mostly gibberish.  I think its a title which could refer to different things for different people and therefore best eliminated..  If their is an immense desire to retain the talk to assist in taking me to ANI then move article and talk to e.g.  and point to Buffer overflow, optionally adding to the / DAB page.  THankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, I have considered if there is scope to expand this, though I do take a point above that it is, in essence, a definition that is better suited in a dictionary and not as an article. I am not entirely convinced that is the only option and could be persuaded otherwise, however on balance is does seem more appropriate as a definition than an encyclopedia article. Even if merging or redirecting, there is more than one candidate and I could not identify one specifically. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; undersourced DICDEF. The existing DAB page (with links to Wiktionary) is sufficient. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 01:04, 25 August 2021 (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.