Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memory Management Techniques in C++

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 of the debate was Move to Wikibooks. I'm applying my admin's discretion to this, moving to Wikibooks is equivalent to "Delete", but at least the content is preserved. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memory Management Techniques in C++

Page consists entirely of original research and therefore violates WP:NOR Yamla 20:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep ... please note that it's a brand new user who submitted it. It would probably be a better idea to help the user find sources for the content than to just wipe the article. This isn't anything controversial - it's just text that needs to be wikified. With respect to WP:NOR, please see the "Expert editors" portion of the policy - as long as everything is verifiable, drawing on your own knowledge is ok. In other words, we can just work to help provide citations and references for the article - we don't need to delete it. BigDT 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it isn't particularly controversial, except for the bit on auto pointers (C++ programmers would almost always prefer TR1's smart pointers). I'm just not sure it is appropriate content for Wikipedia. It looks to be at least debateable but I still think it falls prey to WP:NOR and perhaps WP:NOT as well. Definitely not a clear-cut case, mind you. --Yamla 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Although this page is not for discussing C++ but Auto pointers are a part of the ISO C++ standard published in 98. Smart pointers are not a port of the C++ standard. Pankajwillis 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep If you are well-familiar with programming, this is all common knowledge. This is certainly not original research (I wish it was). All these things are mentioned in authoritative sources on C++ - many of which are mentioned in the main topic's (C++) page. Do you want me to copy all the external links from C++ to this page? Deleting some thing is much easier than creating it. Pankajwillis 20:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - basically yes. Please see Help:Footnotes for help with citing references. Basically, if I want to provide a reference for this statement, after it, I put <ref>Text for the references section</ref>. Then, at the end in a references section , you put <references/>. Inside the ref tags, you can put just a straight URL or you can use one of the citation templates like Template:Cite web or Template:Cite. Please see Virginia Tech campus for an example (albeit not a spectacular one) of using the new system of adding references.
• Comment - would the nominator be willing to consent to a speedy keep with a promise that it's going to be cleaned up and cited and an assurance from another programmer (me) that Pankajwillis is correct when he says that everything is common knowledge? BigDT 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I would absolutely agree to this if both you and the original author believe this is appropriate under WP:NOT. I am not trying to imply that it fails WP:NOT, just that I want both of you to consider those criteria. The nomination for AfD was made in good faith but it seems to me there is a good chance this article can be improved to become an excellent Wikipedia page. I would certainly be willing to help out with that as well. --Yamla 20:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it would be a good idea (once the AFD is over) to take the word "Techniques" out of the title ... because yes, WP is not a how-to manual ... but memory management in C++ is certainly a very notable and important topic ... BigDT 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, how do I go about removing this article from AfD? You'd think I'd know how to do that by now.  :) --Yamla 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If the nominator withdraws the nomination, an admin can close it as a speedy keep. However, now that there has been another vote for deletion, a speedy keep is not permissible. It's no biggie. BigDT 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while potentially not WP:OR, despite the missing sources, I believe it fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information as being too much like an instruction manual. Encylopediac info on notable memory management techniques specific to C++ couldl be added to Memory management. Regards, MartinRe 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is not an encyclopedia article or topic. We don't need "Memory management in Perl" "Memory management in COBOL" "Memory management in FORTH" "Memory management in brainfuck". Kotepho 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Is there a C/C++ Wikibook? -- GWO
• Move to Wikibooks. It's useful, but it doesn't belong to the article namespace. --Zoz (t) 15:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Wikify, merge with Manual memory management (more specific than memory management)--EngineerScotty 18:29, 9 June 2006 (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.