AVL Trees in Java ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page is not a self-published reference. It is a major theorem of computer science that is now more than 55 years old. It is not unreferenced as was claimed; rather, it is referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. Falsely labeling the work as a self-published reference and deleting it is an abuse of Wikipedia's own guidelines. The articles contain information published nowhere else. They were influenced by the main AVL page. The fact that some of the information is published at I++ is quite irrelevant. NNcNannara ( talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment as deleting administrator: These articles were not deleted because AVL trees themselves and the description thereof on these articles was original research. That would indeed be absurd. They were instead deleted because they are all copies of AVL tree, each with a different programming language used for examples. For obvious reasons, we do not generally create new articles with almost entirely duplicated text for each programming language. WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which specifically states that Wikipedia is not a repository for source code, was brought up several times in the deletion discussions, which were completely unanimous. And if it was a repository, we would not do it by creating new articles for each example with entirely duplicated text. I suppose we might have an article on implementing an algorithm in a particular language if there was something noteworthy and interesting, covered in sources of course, about doing it in that language. That is not the case here, as far as I know. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (and all the related ones below). The AfD nomination was spot-on, and in all cases, clear (unanimous) consensus. The AfD's could not have been closed any other way. Taking a step back, nobody is arguing that AVL tree isnt an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. It's just that there's nothing special about implementing them in any particular language. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

1. Clearly pseudo-code is procedural and very dated (back in C and Pascal days). Therefore to provide a sensible discussion on AVL you need to pick one or more of the modern languages. It is impractical to jumble the languages on a single page, so obviously you do it on a separate page. I don't see what all the fuss is about. It seems that you are desperately grasping at different excuses to delete the holy pages. NNcNannara ( talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
2. I don't care if the decision was unanimous, I want to know what the actual reason is for deleting the pages. You have jumped from WP:NOR to self-published to WP:NOTREPOSITORY to a fork of the main page and to various other issues. Now you are saying WP:NOTREPOSITORY means a total ban on source code.
3. You say that there is nothing special about implementing AVL Trees in a particular language. You are quite wrong of course. In C# you have references to references and these are absent from Java. This means that the Java version is different from other languages in that RotateLeft etc return references. Native C++ uses pointers, which is different from the other languages. Each language is quite unique. There is no other way to present a sensible discussion but to put them on separate pages so your ban on multiple pages makes no sense at all. To ban software altogether would render Wikipedia largely irrelevant to programmers. AVL is the big one, if you get that right you are off to a great start with the Software Industry.
4. The 4 pages are NOT copies of the original page. The bulk of the content was sourced from 4 separate class libraries. I later copied content from the original page to satisfy requests to 'integrate' the articles into Wikipedia. To say they are copies of the original page is vastly overestimating that page and represents a distortion of the truth. NNcNannara ( talk) 03:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Nowhere in WP:NOTREPOSITORY does it mention source code - that seems to be your creation Erik. You seem to be banning source code in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has syntax highlighting for a purpose I assume. The similarity between the text of the 4 pages is entirely intentional. Clearly the language and source code sharply differentiates the pages. I don't see why multiple pages in different languages shouldn't be included.

You are treating the algorithm like any other algorithm, but my view is that it is the most important algorithm in computer science (finite mathematics). Clearly the AVL Theorem deserves the coverage it is given in the 4 pages. You appear to be making the rules up as you go. Does it say anywhere in the rules that multiple pages on similar topics are not permitted? What is your reasoning behind objecting to multiple pages in different languages for the AVL Theory. Exactly what are you objecting to? NNcNannara ( talk) 01:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

You say that it is absurd that NOR could be used in this case, but that is the very reason that was given in the argument to delete the pages. There was also talk of the pages being a fork of the original page, but I argued that that was equally absurd. Now you are saying 'self published' but I am disagreeing. Then you have jumped to the statement that multiple pages are not permitted. This discussion is all over the place. NNcNannara ( talk) 01:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Thus far, you have not provided any reasonable argument for deleting the pages. I assume that you will restore them, and then I will restore the link to them from the main page. The decision to delete them in the first place may have been unanimous, but the reason seems to be oscillating (at the moment) between banning software altogether or banning multiple language pages - both of which are absurd. There is no safety in numbers (re unanimous) your lack of reasons to delete the pages has been exposed. If they remain deleted, I can only assume Wikipedia is just plain evil, right Jimmy?

WP:NOTREPOSITORY says: "Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code... "(emph. added) It's fine to include examples to illuminate the subject; that is why we have the syntax highlighting features, etc. This discussion is all over the place. – frankly, there are several reasons the page was deleted; that happens sometimes. What is your reasoning behind objecting to multiple pages in different languages – we essentially always eschew multiple articles about the same subject; as a programmer I'm sure you are aware of how this introduces maintenance difficulties, among many other reasons. You say that it is absurd that NOR could be used in this case, but that is the very reason that was given in the argument to delete the pages. – I don't see NOR in the deletion discussions. WP:NOT was; that is entirely different; NOT is the same as WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Each language is quite unique – this differences you outline are trivial, nowhere near the bar required for a standalone article. Standalone articles require multiple, independent, high quality sources talking about the subject in significant depth. See the general notability guidelines for more. If, e.g., implementing AVL trees in haskell or something is a major research topic with several scholarly articles about why it is interesting or something, then maybe. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 05:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Including examples to illuminate the subject is precisely what I am doing. It is called proving a theorem in mathematics, programming in computing. You are right, that's why you have syntax highlighting - so you can display programs like AVL Trees (being the first and most important).

The 4 standalone articles are multiple, independent, high quality sources talking about the subject in significant depth. You hit the nail right on the head. NNcNannara ( talk) 06:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Your original assertion was that the work was self-published. You then shifted the debate to a perceived "Muliple Page Problem". I shall now answer the "Multiple Page Problem". AVL Tree at Rosetta Code places the code in one page for all the different languages. When the code gets too big, they place it in a separate page. They considered the code too big to place inline on the front page. I agree. This leaves us with no other choice but to embark upon separate pages, which is the way I did it for Wikipedia, having already gained to clues from Rosetta. The Rosetta Code has no explanations or diagrams - it is just raw code (syntax highlighted however). The explanations and diagrams and mathematics is the same for all pages. Thus they vaguely resemble one another - although, when they were all code they were quite different. I then cut explanations and diagrams into the pages as well as other material from the original page. This was mistakenly taken as the 4 pages being a fork of the main page. It also seems to have resulted in confusion in your committee for they focused wrongly on the resemblances of the pages - when they started out as quite different pages. The pages are standalone and have different search engine characteristics. However, a link from the existing page is much appreciated. NNcNannara ( talk) 06:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTREPOSITORY should not be used to ban the main theorem of programming - AVL Trees. This code is like no other - it is of earth shattering importance, just like say "The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus". If this is the only code you include, you would certainly include it. The code is highly structured and represents the proof of a theorem rather than like normal code. It was, after all, invented by Mathematicians. If you include mathematics, then certainly you would include some code - the code more like theorems - and AVL is the most important theorem in computer science. The only way to properly describe AVL Trees is with code. Your current page fails to adequately describe AVL. It presents a few incorrect definitions (like an incorrect definition of balance factor) and not much else. It is skeletal in the extreme and doesn't really attempt to do the job. Wikipedia needs the upgrade. NNcNannara ( talk) 07:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

On your comment about Haskall, you seem to fail to realize that Java, C#, Native C++ and Managed C++ probably account for 90% of the market. These 4 sources are of staggering importance, far more important than a discussion about Haskall, which is a little known language. I don't know where you are going with that comment, but the sources presented to you are very important and you should pay them due respect. You talk about other scholarly articles, but I could unload the entire theory of Pure Calculus on you. NNcNannara ( talk) 07:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

As far as you know AVL Trees are not noteworthy or interesting - is that right? NNcNannara ( talk) 07:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I am not suggesting that Wikipedia become a repository of code like GitHub. However, we are talking about the main theorem of computer science (finite mathematics) - and of course it must be included. What other code you include is up to you. For example, you could include a couple of pages on the non-recursive merge sort (see Kruse). However, in Calculus, lists are sorted using AVL - so even the good old non-recursive merge sort falls to the AVL Theorem. I have banished it to be forgotten (all other list sorts included). I regard Red/Black Trees, B Trees and B+ Trees all to be rubbish. AVL takes them all out. So AVL is the bulk of the entire shooting match. NNcNannara ( talk) 07:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this and the similar ones below. The arguments for deletion (most significantly that Wikipedia is not a code repository) were strong, and there was no support in any of the AfDs to keep any of these articles. No other outcome was possible. Reyk _YO! 11:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The arguments for deletion are not strong at all - they have been totally smashed - hello, can you read? You say that no other outcome is possible - that's just bullshit - you are attempting to coerce the decision by ignoring the arguments put forward. It is running a hearing by ignoring the evidence and defense - the outcome is fixed - "No other outcome was possible". It is rigged - is that what you are saying? NNcNannara ( talk)

So you want to reject education by consensus - I'd say you are dumb arses - unworthy of the beautiful works which you seek to reject. NNcNannara ( talk) 13:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I note that not one person has made a positive comment about the pages. It has all been negative shit. The situation is really quite pathetic. NNcNannara ( talk) 14:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I sweated blood to create the code over a 30 year period. You bludgers haven't even got the gumption to fight to keep it. In fact you are fighting to remove it. It stinks. NNcNannara ( talk) 14:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Writing the pages was a real pleasure that has been soured by the actions of you drones - educating humanity is more trouble than its worth it seems - it may be impossible due to massive IQ reduction. All your programmers are like Mathematicians who don't know Calculus - they are just incompetent drones. I am trying to recover the situation, and you, the evil influence, are trying to screw the world up on a continuing basis. Who is the next drone that is going to put their hand up for being evil. You desperately need to come up with some new excuses, the existing excuses have been comprehensively demolished. You have been reduced to blindly stating that "No other outcome was possible". Your response to AVL Source code has been to use WP:NOTREPOSITORY to ban all source code on Wikipedia. That's just destroying the utility of Wikipedia to programmers. You can go ahead and do this and I'll just laugh at you. NNcNannara ( talk) 14:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• • You are being very unpleasant. Calling people evil and incompetent drones is not the way to get what you want. Reyk _YO! 18:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    1. Just calling a spade a spade. The drones are being quite unpleasant to me, so I'm giving it back. How many of you have congratulated me on the creation of AVL in 4 languages - none right! You have no manners, so don't be so uppity about being called a drone. NNcNannara ( talk) 19:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    2. If you lot ever develop manners, I'll treat you with respect. While you behave like pigs, I'll treat you accordingly. Get used to it. NNcNannara ( talk) 20:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    3. What I originally 'wanted', was to cure the incompetence that is widespread in the industry in particular and the world in general. What I want now (after months of being subjected rude Wikipedians) is to blow off a bit of steam then exit stage left. I suspect that the ignorance and incompetence will remain and that evil will prevail. I am a teacher by trade, but the audience is so rude and ignorant as to be beyond teaching. Therefore you can delete the free source code and pay for Pure and Applied Calculus. Delete the freebies - go ahead make my day. NNcNannara ( talk) 20:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The 'bar' required for multiple standalone articles is in your words, "Standalone articles require multiple, independent, high quality sources talking about the subject in significant depth". The 4 AVL Wikies are exactly multiple, independent, high quality 'sources' talking about the subject in significant depth. Your very words describe the pages perfectly. Clearly they fit Wikipedia's requirements. This leaves you with WP:NOTREPOSITORY - which, given the nature of AVL, implies a total ban on all source code (may as well forget about syntax highlighting eh). So are you going to ban all source code so as the remain incompetent - and that's supposed to be a potent display of your intelligence. NNcNannara ( talk) 14:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Wikis don't count as reliable sources (including Wikipedia by the way). See WP:RS. That said, I honestly suspect there are plenty of sources out there for at least C++ and Java AVL implementations and I suspect enough commentary on such implementations that we could probably justify an article. Hobit ( talk) 15:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

    Some wikis could be reliable sources, in theory, but as you say certainly not Wikipedia. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 18:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I am beginning to think that the sheep are so nasty that they actually deserve STL (i.e. red/black trees). Stick it to the IQ stinkers right Bjarne. NNcNannara ( talk) 15:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hey, I like red/black trees. Never actually taught AVL in class, just 2-3-4 and red/black for balanced trees. Hobit ( talk) 17:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

I actually invented red/black trees in C#. They are rubbish, but you can like them if you wish. NNcNannara ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Given the structure of AVL on disk I can confidently say that B Trees and B+ Trees are rubbish too (shock, horror). NNcNannara ( talk) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Endorse there were two basic problems with this article:

• The articles mostly consisted of source code. While using source code for illustrative examples is OK, articles shouldn't consist predominantly of source code. Wikipedia isn't a code repository. There are other sites which are code repositories, but this isn't one of them.
• We don't like having multiple pages on the same topic, even if they each treat something from a different perspective. It complicates things and reduces maintainability. There isn't any reason to have different examples for different programming languages unless the differences between the languages are sufficiently interesting to involve comment (by which I mean there are reliable sources which discuss them). Just pick one easily understood language and use that, or use pseudocode. The content which isn't specific to one programming language related to the topic as a whole.

These are perfectly valid arguments and I don't see any effective rebuttal to them. Hut 8.5 21:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The simple fact of the matter is that there are radically different programming languages that may be used to express the same basic concept. If you wish to cover the bulk of the market then you will need to select at least the 4 chosen languages. Each language has a different approach and different features (as already described). As already discussed, there are a number of options but the code is so large as to require separate pages. How do you intend to handle code from different languages? At least I have made a fist of it - that's a whole lot more than the current lame approach. You have merely winged about separate pages. The code is so refined that maintenance is not an issue - the correct proof of the AVL Theorem has been supplied in each case. Why pick just one language and discriminate against the others? I disagree with you that you can just 'pick a language' and that's it. Only a non-programmer (or an incompetent one) would say such a thing. The more languages you cover the better, but I have covered the main 4. Pseudo code is procedural and outdated.

The articles are a nice mixture of explanation, diagrams and code. You are whinging and whining without giving any thought to how to present the topic. If you focused on the presentation instead of whinging about the size of the code you would see that there is little choice but to do what has already been done. The presentations are near perfect (only the diagrams could be improved).

You have already outlined the criteria for having multiple pages on the same topic. As I have pointed out (twice), the code is a perfect fit for your description. You have whinged again about the same thing without giving proper consideration to the fact that it is done and dusted as a topic (you lost).

I don't accept that proving the AVL Theorem implies that you are a code repository - that's just nonsense.

There is your rebuttal. You even tried to preempt the rebuttal by saying there is none, which is inane. NNcNannara ( talk) 00:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note that the alternative to having code in the presentation is to have none. This is your current position. Having no code to discuss AVL is essentially giving up the ghost - which is what you are currently doing. When I tried to remedy the situation you have thrown a hord of whingers at me who are scratching around trying to look for an excuse to screw it all up. Not a repository, no original research, no self-published works, no multiple pages - any pathetic excuse you can come up with. As I said before, the original objection was WP:NOR and that was your best option -for, in fact, rotations with parents are original, node swapping is original and so on. However you have since moved on from WP:NOR - even calling it absurd. Your next approach was a fork of the main page - which went down. Earlier yesterday, you claimed it was no self-published works. You promptly deleted that (probably realizing that it was ridiculous) and replaced it with not a repository and no multiple pages. The multiple pages thing went down courtesy of your own description. That leaves us with not a repository. If the only code you had in Wikipedia is the AVL Theorem - well, at least you've got the important one. 2000 lines of code doesn't make Wikipedia a repository and anyone who suggests it does just doesn't understand code and repositories. Basically, you are talking nonsense here. That leaves you with diddly squat to go on. The prosecution is down, the defense won. All that remains is to see if you take any notice whatsoever of your 'quasi-legal' structures.

None of you have provided any comments about the code or explanations. While you whinge about the volume of code consider this: that code took 30 years to create, the final Wiki page (the C# one) took 10 minutes. Code is much harder than written text. Instead of criticizing the volume it takes to prove the AVL Theorem, you should be marveling at it in the various languages. It seems that none of you whingers actually understand and appreciate the AVL Theory; otherwise, you would be profusely thanking me. I have given you the gift of knowledge and all you have done is look the gift horse in the mouth. The whole situation really stinks. NNcNannara ( talk) 01:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Admin Note, while I understand that of course having your content deleted can be intensely unpleasant, it still doesn't justify violations of WP:CIVIL. Calling other editors "whingers", "pigs" or "drones" is not acceptable, and if it's necessary to hand out blocks so that people can participate in this discussion without being the subject of personal attacks, I will. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 05:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC). reply
• NNcNannara: I think the point that you are missing is that we have rules for what we have pages on. The rules don't include things like this. DRV is about discussing if the rules were handled correctly in the AfD discussion. They were, it's really not debatable. If you want to get that changed, you need to get people to change the rules. Hobit ( talk) 05:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  1. Apart from the "Multiple Page Issue" - which has been covered, the only other objection is the WP:NOTREPOSITORY. As I already stated, I think your committee is in error if they believe that proving the AVL Theorem with a couple of thousand lines of code constitutes turning Wikipedia into a repository. You say it is 'not debatable', I say you are completely wrong. I watch you say that it is 'inevitable', 'could have been no other way', 'not debatable' - all heavy handed attempts at stifling debate.
  2. You give yourselves license to be rude but get all uppity when your are called a drone - despite behaving like one. I am incensed that not one person has stood up for the AVL Theorems. You criticize me but your conduct is shameful beyond belief. I have had enough of the situation and regret giving out any freebies whatsoever - to you or to Rosetta. You can delete the pages forever and I will care not a jot about educating the human race any further - they are completely lacking in manners. NNcNannara ( talk) 08:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  3. I have given you the source code of one class - Set; however, Pure and Applied Calculus consists of 24 classes. Given your rude approach, you can go whistle dixie for the source code to the remaining 23. Note that while AVL in memory may appear large, AVL on disk is even larger and much more complex. NNcNannara ( talk) 08:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  4. The crux of the debate seems to be the belief that proving one theorem constitutes turning Wikipedia into a repository for code. Why do you believe this shaky proposition to the point of saying it is 'not debatable'? GitHub has hundreds of millions of lines of code - it is a repository. Instead of congratulating me on a job well done, you seek to delete the code based upon these shaky beliefs. The more you lose the debate, the more emphatically you claim it is 'not debatable'. NNcNannara ( talk) 09:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  5. If you were to choose just one theorem of computer science for which to supply source code, it would be the AVL Theorem. After all, this is the central theorem of computer science. Using WP:NOTREPOSITORY on this is tantamount to banning code altogether. Is that what you are doing - banning code on Wikipedia? NNcNannara ( talk) 10:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  6. Hobit - I am not missing any points - don't be so condescending. It is not about changing rules it is about interpreting the rules. The not a repository rule is there to prevent large scale invasion of code into Wikipedia. You are falsely using it to ban the main theorem of computer science - thus effectively all code. Your committee is in error. NNcNannara ( talk) 10:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Seriously, you need to stop this. An administrator has warned you that personal attacks are going to get you blocked, yet you still continue to try to dominate this discussion with ranting and raving and calling people names. Let others contribute to the discussion without screaming at them. Reyk _YO! 10:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Stop what? Stop the discussion? You are losing the debate and have reverted to personal attacks. I am not 'ranting and raving' as you say, but providing careful reasoning. The 'ranting and raving' claim is a vicious personal attack Reyk - perhaps you should be blocked. Clearly you can't handle the heat of a carefully reasoned debate and now you are attempting to silence me. You can block me and delete my code and I will just continue my research. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not the only option for participating in the software industry. NNcNannara ( talk) 11:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  You know very well that I am talking about your habit of dumping long, repetitive, insulting walls of text on this discussion. You're trying to drown out everyone else with sheer volume and nasty behaviour. Nobody has made a personal attack on you, as you are aware, but you have called others evil, drones, dumbarses, shameful, pigs, incompetent, etc. Knock it off. As for who is winning the debate, not one person except yourself at any of the AfDs or this deletion review has argued to retain these algorithm implementations in various languages. We shall see how this discussion is closed. Reyk _YO! 11:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• I am not going to 'Knock it off', that is, I am not going to fold the defense because you can't handle the debate. The reasoning is not repetitive. I have supplied you with the AVL Theorems and you call me 'nasty'. I am being a philanthropist and you have just instigated a vicious personal attack. The discussion is not balanced. You are all losing perspective on what is actually going on - which is the rejection of the source code of the AVL Theorem. You should reign in your agression Reyk and get everything in perspective. This whole discussion is about doing humanity a favour. NNcNannara ( talk) 11:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• What you fail to realize Reyk, it that we have made some progress in the discussion. It is now down to - Do we use WP:NOTREPOSITORY to ban all source code in Wikipedia? That is the question that needs to be answered. NNcNannara ( talk) 11:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• I am not 'drowning out' anyone - feel free to contribute to the discussion. Just be prepared for the volume of reasoning that a fine intellect can throw at you. NNcNannara ( talk) 11:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  I am now withdrawing from this discussion because there is obviously no point in talking to you. You seem unable or unwilling to understand anything that's said to you. Reyk _YO! 11:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• You can spit the dummy if you like, but don't assume that I am unable to comprehend anything that is said to me - that is condescending and insulting.
• As for the bitter and twisted "We shall see how this discussion is closed" - I am under no illusions about the outcome. If you delete the pages, ultimately it is humanity that is the loser - I will simply fold up shop and continue my research in private. NNcNannara ( talk) 11:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• I have heeded your warning Lankiveil and will moderate my debating style. But I will continue the debate despite Reyk attempting to silence me. NNcNannara ( talk) 12:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Please make it stop. I've already commented in this discussion, so it's inappropriate for me to also take administrative action ( WP:INVOLVED). Otherwise, I would have long since closed this discussion (which has ceased to be a discussion and turned into a rant), and handed out a long block. I encourage some other (uninvolved) admin to please do those things. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Admin note: I have indefinitely blocked NNcNannara ( talk · contribs) because they are a single-purpose account dedicated to this topic and are clearly not here to (or able to) contribute productively to Wikipedia. I hope this DRV can now conclude in a more peaceful manner.  Sandstein  15:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No indication that the deletion process has not been properly followed. Stifle ( talk) 15:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, walls of text and extremely juvenile insults ("dumb arses"? really?) aren't going to overturn a unanimous AFD consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC) reply

AVL Tree in CSharp ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page is not a self-published reference. It is a major theorem of computer science that is now more than 55 years old. It is not unreferenced as was claimed; rather, it is referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. NNcNannara ( talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Please keep discussion on the entry above for Java, unless there is some reason why this request should have a different fate. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

AVL Trees in C++ ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page is not a self-published reference. It is a major theorem of computer science that is now more than 55 years old. It is not unreferenced as was claimed; rather, it is referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. NNcNannara ( talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Please keep discussion on the entry above for Java, unless there is some reason why this request should have a different fate. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

AVL Trees in Managed C++ ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page is not a self-published reference. It is a major theorem of computer science that is now more than 55 years old. It is not unreferenced as was claimed; rather, it is referenced by Doklady and Robert L. Kruse. NNcNannara ( talk) 22:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Please keep discussion on the entry above for Java, unless there is some reason why this request should have a different fate. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply