Why is there no "weak pointer" for raw pointer? Or is there?

Shared pointers are good idea, no doubt. But as long as a large scale program includes raw pointers, I think there is a big risk in using shared pointers. Mainly, you will loose control of the real life-cycle of pointers to objects that hold raw pointers, and bugs will occur in locations which are more difficult to find and debug.

So my question is, was there no attempt to add to modern c++ a "weak pointer" which does not depend on using shared pointers? I mean just a pointer which becomes NULL when deleted in any part of the program. Is there a reason not to use such a self-made wrapper?

To better explain what I mean, the following is such a "weak pointer" that I made. I named it WatchedPtr.

#include <memory>
#include <iostream>

template <typename T>
class WatchedPtr {
public:
    // the only way to allocate new pointer
    template <typename... ARGS>
    WatchedPtr(ARGS... args) : _ptr (new T(args...)), _allocated (std::make_shared<bool>(true)) {}

    WatchedPtr(const WatchedPtr<T>& other) : _ptr (other._ptr), _allocated (other._allocated) {}

    // delete the pointer
    void del () {delete _ptr; *_allocated = false;}

    auto& operator=(const WatchedPtr<T> &other) { return *this = other; }

    bool isNull() const { return *_allocated; }

    T* operator->() const { return _ptr; }

    T& operator*() const { return *_ptr; }

private:
    T* _ptr;
    std::shared_ptr <bool> _allocated;
};

struct S {
    int a = 1;
};

int main () {
    WatchedPtr<S> p1;
    WatchedPtr<S> p2(p1);
    p1->a = 8;
    std::cout << p1.isNull () << std::endl;
    std::cout << p2.isNull () << std::endl;
    p2.del ();
    std::cout << p1.isNull () << std::endl;
    std::cout << p1.isNull () << std::endl;
    return 0;
}

Result:

1
1
0
0

-Edited-

Thank you all. Some clarifications following the comments and answers so far:

• The implementation I presented for WatchedPtr is merely to demonstrate what I mean: a pointer that does not get the copy from external allocation, cannot be deleted externally, and becomes null if it is deleted. The implementation is knowingly far from perfect and was not meant to be perfect.
• Problem with mix of shared_ptr and raw pointers is very common: A* is held as raw pointer, thus created at some point of the program and explicitly deleted at some point of the program. B holds a A*, and B* is held as shared_ptr, thus B* has vague lifespan. Thus B may live long after the deletion of A* that B holds.
• The main usage of "WatchedPtr" in my mind is defensive programing. i.e. check for null and do the best thing possible for continuity (and a debug error). shared_ptr can do it, but in a very dangerous way - it will hide and delay the problem.
• There can also be a design usage for "WatchedPtr" (very few and explicit "owners"), but this is not the main idea. For that indeed shared pointers are doing the job.
• The intention of "WatchedPtr" is not for replacing all existing raw pointers in the program at once. It is not the same effort as replacing to shared_ptr, which IMHO has be done for the whole program at once. Which is unrealistic for large scale programs.

Reading the answers and comments, along with C++ Core Guidelines by Bjarne Stroustrup & Herb Sutter, I have come to the following answer:
When following the guidelines, there is no need for a "WatchedPtr" which involves "new" and "delete". However, a way to track the validity of a raw pointer taken from a smart pointer, is still in question for me, for debug/QA purposes.

In details:

Raw pointers should continue to be used. For various reasons. However, explicit "new" and "delete" should not. The cases of calling "new" and "delete" should all be replaced by shared_ptr/unique_ptr.
At the place where a raw pointer is currently allocated, there is no point in replacing it by "WatchedPtr".
If replacing a raw pointer to something else where it is allocated, it will be in most cases to unique_ptr, and on the other cases to shared_ptr. The "WatchedPtr", if at all, will continue from that point, built from the shared/unique pointer.

Therefor I have posted a somewhat different question.