Purportedly deleted for G12 copyvio reasons, this article wasn't published in the article namespace. These were my personal notes. Moreover, it doesn't satisfy G13, they were in my userspace, not draftspace. What is the point of a sandbox if its contents is going to be treated as final published material? If nothing else that is a point that needs clarification. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 22:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted for lack of notability, in particular because nobody found any book reviews. But I have found various book reviews:
[1] "Holub's Taming Java Threads contains some nice techniques for getting the most out of thread programming. I'm not sure if it's a necessary resource, though."
[2] (Holub on Patterns) "The book distinguishes itself from other books on design patterns by taking implementation as the center of its discussion. [...] Any reader in the Java world could definitely benefit from reading the book."
Specifically for "Compiler design in C", I found numerous reviews:
[3] "A large book [...] Quite well written, too, though it has a lot of errors."
[4] - not sure what the review says, but [5] says "all titles reviewed are recommended."
[6] - again, not sure what it says, but the snippets I can see seem positive
[8] - "The authoritative reference for anyone who needs to write compilers"
[9] - "Holub is one of those authors with a bent towards optimizing performance. In this book, he covers a whole smorgasbord of techniques and tricks that will speed up a compiler."
It seems from [10] that the rest of his books were published in the 1980s so are difficult to find reviews for online, but hopefully it is clear that his "Compiler design in C" book has had a significant amount of influence. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comments: The AfD was a simple unanimous "delete", so I doubt there is any question about the propriety of my close. None of the reviews mentioned in the DRV request were in the article or discussed during the AfD. So I have no objection to allowing creation of a new article at this title using new sources; it would presumably be quite different from what was deleted. In that circumstance this probably didn't need a DRV, but since the requirement to consult the closer has been deprecated, this is my first opportunity to give that advice. --RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest writing a new version, which you don't need anyone's permission for. If you'd like us to restore the original version to draft space for you to work on then we can do that. However it was quote short (184 words), it didn't mention anything about compiler design (it was more interested in his work as a software trainer), and it read more like his personal website than an encyclopedia article. It also only cited two sources, his personal website and a profile on the website of a university he used to teach at. Hut 8.511:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. I wasn't aware that re-creating the article didn't require a DRV, maybe that could be made clearer somewhere, e.g. adding "re-creating a page" to "what DRV is not" on WP:DRVPURPOSE. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Some new information has come to light since the deletion that potentially justifies there being an article on this topic, beyond what was discussed in the AfD, but as the deleted page does not have meaningful content worth restoring, the page should stay deleted, and a brand new version can be started.—Alalch E.11:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
endorse but feel free to rewrite with the new sources. The sources you cannot see should probably be acquired (interlibrary loan?). The new sources should protect it from speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
