Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breadth-first search implementation

Breadth-first search implementation

As has been discussed ad nauseam at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#Source code, Wikipedia is not a code repository: it is appropriate to describe an algorithm within its own article both in English prose and as either (preferably) pseudocode or a single code implementation. Multiple redundant implementations belong somewhere else more suited to hosting code. We've recently gone through several iterations of ripping all this code out of the breadth-first search article, leaving something shorter that a human can read; this attempt to add it back in by a back-door channel is not constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a non-programmer, I find the article senseless. It doesn't even say what breadth-first search is. The issues that led to this need to be resolved, this isn't the answer. How one would establish notability and verifiability for code like this I can't begin to imagine. Drawn Some (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Noms arguments seem to support merge rather than delete. I agree the article lacks context, that's because it belongs in the main article. Sorry I didn't notice that it was a fork in the first place. I would support moving the pseudocode back into the main article and getting rid of the rest. Since the content was from the original article anyway, no need to merge. Gigs (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the pseudocode was from the main article already, put it back, and delete all these implementations. Wikipedia is definitely not a source code repository. Fences and windows (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore (or merge if it wasn't already there) the psuedocode back to the main article, delete the various implementations. No good reason to have specific implementations in the article, which run into verifiability issues (plus, how does one pick which languages are "important" enough to show?) Nothing wrong with having the psuedocode though. BryanG (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]