Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prepared singleton pattern

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prepared singleton pattern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Procedural nomination, completion of user Wikidrone's incomplete nomination. Wikidrone gave the following reasoning: "This does no differ significantly from normal singleton". Abstain. Tobias Bergemann 13:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Only use of this phrase I see for this meaning is in the book used as a reference, and mirrors of wikipedia. The same name is used for a different meaning in the context of informix. I disagree with the nominator that this is no different from the "normal" singleton pattern, as the usual way of implementing singleton is using on-demand instantiation, which can be a problem in real-time programming, hence this solution to the problem. I don't think it's particularly important, though, because it just says "to avoid the problems with on-demand instantiation, don't use on-demand instantiation." Well, duh. If we want to keep this, we need to show that the term is in widespread use. JulesH 14:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is minor implementation detail (like for example destruction or resurrection policy for a singleton). The term is not used IRL. Pavel Vozenilek 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 21:12, 7 June 2007 (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.