Deletion of Heap pollution

Comment: mdash;I was able to track down the following sources:  Two page description in the ''Java Language Specification'',.  Half-page discussion with code sample in ''Beginning Java''.  Two page discussion with code sample in ''Java 7 New Features Cookbook''.  http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=Java+%22heap+pollution%22 19 hits in the primary literature, including an extensive discussion in Stenzel 2008 (certainly  and very little in the way of citation counts, but this does establish the term exists outside of Java programming manuals).  I doubt this will ever hit  status, but (in my opinion) there are enough  to establish notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY||WP:GA||WP:RS)

Comment: or merge into Generics in Java). This is a common technical problem (it is a FAQ) that crops up with generic (parametrized) types in Java. I added a ref verifying the definition. I have not been able to find multiple in-depth RS, so the topic seems to fail notability guidelines per . According to  and , merging of verifiable material is preferred to deletion. It seems appropriate to merge it into a section in the Generics in Java article. '''Update''': Changing recommendation to ''keep'' following Lesser Cartographies' nice RS finds and AioftheStorm's article improvements
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:PRESERVE||WP:ATD)

Comment: It only defines the term (although not in a way that makes any sense to me) it does not explain the importance or significance of "heap pollution." By ot a dictionary this article does not belong in WP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)