Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recursion termination Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Recursion_termination

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 redirect to Recursion (computer science). A viable merger requires verifiable content in the source that isn't already covered in the target: the presence of such information has not been demonstrated here. However, I am not deleting the history, and anyone who believes they can retrieve anything worthwhile is free to try to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recursion termination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article's content is already present in Recursion (computer science) and Termination analysis (the link from the latter to Recursion termination is misleading, as Recursion termination doesn't provide any new information). The article is poorly written, doesn't have reliable inline citations, and wasn't worked upon (except for small edits) for 10 years. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Recursion (computer science) per WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. StrayBolt (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have no objection to a merge, but I am afraid it will change almost nothing in Recursion (computer science). The role of base cases for termination is mentioned in section Recursion (computer science)#Recursive functions and algorithms; it could be made slightly more clear. The factorial example from Recursion termination is already present in Recursion (computer science)#Factorial. The fibonacci example could of course be added as yet another recursive function. By the way: both examples fail to notice that the functions will not terminate when called with a negative agument. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Recursion (computer science) per the above observations by the OP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Recursion (computer science) unless the Merge !voters can point to something specific in this article that is a) not already covered in the suggested target and b) meriting additional time and effort by other editors to preserve. Otherwise ATD and PRESERVE are fulfilled with a redirect. Bakazaka (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Recursion (computer science). I don't see anything worth merging. MarkH21 (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2019 (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.