Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-object programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:02, 20 June 2006

Latest revision as of 21:19, 23 April 2022

(8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was '''Delete'''. [[User:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">Proto</span>]]<I><B>/</B>/<B>/</B></I><small>[[User_talk:Proto|<span style="text-decoration:none">type</span>]]</small> 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

===[[Post-object programming]]===

I've searched references for the whole content of the article for too long, yet haven't been lucky. I've already asked for them in the talkl page again and again, with no answer. The original article had a whole section which was nonsense (see Talk page), so I believe the article's topic is completely made up, or maybe original research by some non-expert in the topic. In conclusion, the article is non-verifiable and (consequently) perhaps original research. [[User:Euyyn|euyyn]] 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

*If this were a notable programming method, one would expect a fair amount of google hits (since it is related to computers). But [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22post-object+programming%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official this isn't the case]. Thus, I must say, '''delete'''. -- [[User:Where|<b><font colorstyle="color:blue;">Where</font></b>]] 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Expand''' or '''delete'''. I think it might be a valid article except that no references have been given for the article. Unless sources can be given, '''delete'''. - [[User:DNewhall|DNewhall]] 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment''': I repeated my search for references (with google: [http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22post-object+programming%22+-%22is+a+new+generation%22+-%22aspect-oriented+programming%22&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda&meta= "post-object programming" -"is a new generation" -"aspect-oriented programming"], trying to avoid WP mirrors and pages about AOP - which says it's a kind of Post-object P.) and among the 95 results found 2 (non-chinesse) pages about the topic:

::[http://www.cs.manchester.ac.uk/cnc/mscprojects/index_2003.html#cnc.t3 Post-Object Programming for Computational Science], which says a little and gives 2 emails to ask for further details

::[http://www.swcp.com/raccoon/postobject.html Post-object programming], which lists our WP article as one of 2 web references (the other one being the Cecil's homepage).

:I now think the article is nothing but academic propaganda for someone's non-notable research. --[[User:Euyyn|euyyn]] 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' or, failing that, '''Redirect to [[Aspect-oriented programming]]''' for now with leave to rewrite - according to [http://www.cse.unr.edu/~sushil/class/425/notes/p29-elrad.pdf] and [http://www.fit.ac.jp/~zhao/waosd2004/pdf/Zhang.pdf], [[Aspect-oriented programming|AOP]] is a subset of [[Post-object programming|POP]]. But the current [[Post-object programming|POP]] article really seems to just be describing [[Aspect-oriented programming|AOP]]. Still, the term is clearly notable, even if this article is incomplete. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 02:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

*'''delete''' - The content is mostly weak and the few things of note are well covered elsewhere. The implication that these things are post-OO is simply wrong; delegation, mixins and multiple dispatch are an intergral part of OO. I've only ever come across this as an expression used in a descriptive sense and it not deserving of it's own page. [[User:MartinSpamer|MartinSpamer]]

*'''delete''' - another unsourced, unverified article. These do a disservice to WP. [[User:BlueValour|BlueValour]] 22:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>