Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac OS memory management

Mac OS memory management

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

Questionable notability and unreferenced. moɳo 00:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Keep as long as refs to Apple are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 01:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Although refs from Apple are good to have, please note that third-party, published references are needed. See here for more detail.--moɳo 00:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a news search and only got 2 articles. WTF!?? I can't imagine this isn't notable, but the news search sure doesn't demonstrate any notability! Hmmm... there isn't a 'Windows Memory Management' page either, and maybe the general Memory management page would suffice for both? David V Houston (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think this article should be kept. Mac OS memory management issues were one of the most well know/infamous issues about the pre OS X days. MtD (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)~~ I've been told that my comment here was inappropriate so I'm removing it. Sorry. MtD (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I managed to find only a few reliable references to the article: [1], [2], and [3]. This is definitely a notable topic, but references are sparse. If it is decided that this article should not be kept, I vouch for a merge to Mac OS. Otherwise, I'm voting weak keep.Airplaneman ✈ 00:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lotta information there, in detail but it would probably be better off in Mac OS. Looked for sources and there probably are more just a lot of noise since Mac OS covers so many versions of the same operating system. Is there a Mac collector wiki where they go into detail on this stuff? --Savonneux (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is too big to merge to Mac OS—it's actually linked from there as sub-article. Clearly needs references. There's an OS X internals book [4]. I'm sure there's OS 9 and below secondary coverage in this area as well, just not easily accessible. What I was able to turn are user-oriented books [5]. OS 9's memory management was annoying enough that users had to deal with it explicitly. Pcap ping 01:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Merge to Memory Management. References need to be improved, but delete is not substitute for marking as needs cleanup or ref. improved. I did some programming for Mac OS back in the day and it's approach to memory handles was on of the more notable details compared to other OSes. I'ld be sort of surprised if there were not more sources out there. Because of the age though it might be difficult to find web based sources, old programming magazines and books might be good resources. I tried a quick search for memory-handle on books.google.com finds a bunch of snippets about the topic, but didn't see any where enough of the snippets were available to use as a source. I do wonder if the article should be renamed or made a "Memory Handles" section of Memory Management. Regardless it should be mentioned there. PaleAqua (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]