Allocation site (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What are you talking about? NSOFT is (an essay) about computer programs, not concepts in computer science. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply -referring to WP:NSOFT,which means the article is related to non-notable software. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's what I said NSOFT is about, but I still don't see how it's the least bit applicable here. It would be like applying WP:NSPECIES to a concept in anatomy. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that NSOFT applies, but I also think a computer scientist could offer a more useful response. Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely does not apply. WP:NSOFT describes advice on inclusion of computer programs. An allocation site is not a computer program, but a more fundamental computing concept. MarioGom (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still think the article meets Wikipedia general notability guideline criteria? Clenpr (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On the assumption that this really is specifically germane to OOD, merge to Constructor (object-oriented programming), as I don't think you can say much about it out of that context. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC) struck in favor of below.[reply]

  Could you provide a valid independent source so there is at least a reference in the redirected article? We do not want unverifiable content in Wikipedia. Clenpr (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The definition is correct, and it's not specific to object-oriented programming - it's used generally when talking about dynamic memory allocation. A quick search for "allocation site" on Google Books finds 15 references using it in this sense in the first 20 results. However, I'm not sure there's enough to say about the concept for an article of its own. Pointer analysis could be a redirect target, although that's specifically about static analysis and it's also used in dynamic analysis (e.g. memory debugging). Adam Sampson (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge though I am not as savvy in programming itself, basing upon the definition stated in the article, a sensible move for me is to merge it to Object-oriented programming,as on its own as it is, seems not enough as a standalone, noted also by fellow wikipedians above for lack of RS to support it.Villkomoses (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you provide a valid independent source so there is at least a reference in the redirected article? We do not want unverifiable content in Wikipedia. Clenpr (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• jlwoodwa, do you have an opinion on the two merge/redirect targets above? Mangoe, do you stand by your proposed target or would you prefer Adam Sampson's proposal of Pointer analysis? Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Memory management. The current article is not very useful, and a redirect to OOP-specific article would be incorrect. Memory allocation is not specific to object oriented programming. The concept of a an allocation site is not specific to OOP either. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Memory management per above as this seems to be a better target. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]