Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weak Heap


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 09:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Weak Heap

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Move to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Weak_Heap. 333-blue 03:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 06:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GabeIglesia (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Dictionaries have nothing to do with this. It is a poor article on an obscure algorithmic and data structuring technique. The main heap article has eighteen sub-types of heap linked from it: this is one. Twenty seven in the category. It needs improvement, not deletion. It certainly didn't benefit from AfDing it within an hour of its creation. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've expanded the article. As the subject of multiple nontrivial independent research articles (with double-digit citations) as well as a secondary source (quite rightly chosen as the main source by the article creator) it clearly passes WP:GNG. As for NOTDICT, it is being badly abused here by both the nominator and . That guideline is about not having articles about words and their definitions, but should say nothing about having articles about abstract concepts that happen to include definitions of those concepts. Or otherwise, how could we have articles about anything mathematical at all? We miight as well give up and be the encyclopedia of celebrities, sportspeople, and film stars. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apologies if I came across as abusive. I spoke too soon, when the article was much different and looked like a singular definition (admittedly for something I didn't know and should've left to an expert smarter than me). I retract my support for a Delete. The article is in good shape. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:GNG per, , , , , , , etc. Also keep per WP:HEY; the article has been significantly expanded by . North America1000 08:52, 6 December 2015 (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.