Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pointer jumping

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. Tone 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer jumping

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A computer science concept of unclear notability. Aside from being poorly sourced, it is written in a user manual style. It is so unclear that I had trouble determining what it's even about, and that's naturally hindered my attempts to find additional sources (I could find nothing good). Reyk _YO! 18:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on notability grounds. The concept is quite present in textbooks [1], of which at least a couple appear to provide full-length discussion [2][3]. Possibly can be merged to some broader article, but I don't have an overview there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sourcing looks great to me. The article cites two textbooks in the field of algorithms. Is there a deeper problem with the sources? The article does need some cleanup: it fails to describe the concept in full before jumping into the first example, and the second example is unreferenced. But this is not a reason for deletion. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this is kept, suggest that it needs a rewrite (at least the lead), so that the average wikireader can understand what its about. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have thought references to two prominently used textbooks would have been enough, but I've done some literature search and updated to page with several varied publications using the design technique. I also made some minor edits to hopefully clarify the topic a bit. Perhaps a better writer is able to improve this more, but the description to me does not seem any more confusing than descriptions like for the divide-and-conquer algorithm. Moreland, Kenneth (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, from someone who achieved d grades in high school for computer programming (so did not pursue it:)), the introduction is now clearer. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.