Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collection Oriented Programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:36, 22 July 2006

Latest revision as of 03:45, 6 February 2023

(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 was '''delete'''. [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

===[[Collection Oriented Programming]]===

[[WP:NEO|Protologism]], [[WP:OR|original research]]. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Collection+Oriented+Programming%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&hs=nWX&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=30&sa=N 27 unique Google hits], including author's home page and some WP mirrors. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collection_Oriented_Programming&action=history Article author] has this to say on [http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/top.htm his personal page]: "Thus, I am here trying to sell the dream and vision of perhaps what should be called 'collection-oriented-programming.' I found it a more powerful metaphore than anything else on the market, and I hope you will too." [[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Line 23 ⟶ 31:

-----

I deny originating the term. How about a compromise: a stub at the very top that questions the commonality of the term rather than outright deletion. It can serve as topic to tie together languages and tools with similar features. There is '''no alternative''' currently that I can find to describe the similarities of focusing on operations that operate on entire collections/data-structures. asIt first-classis anda coherantconcept objects/features/unitsfound in linear algebra ("matrix math"), but arrays are not the only collections that can be treated this way. -Tablizer

: Subjects which are not [[WP:N|notable]], [[WP:V|verifiable]], and [[WP:CITE|cited]] do not belong on Wikipedia at all. It is [[WP:OR|original research]] regardless of whether you personally created the term (and please note that nobody here ever asserted you did). If you don't understand why this is true, read the definition of "original research" on the page I just linked. There is no "question" regarding the commonality of the term. It is almost totally unused in the field of computing. A search of [http://portal.acm.org/ 750000+ citations from 3000+ publishers] yields two results, one of which is the Brakefield citation I discussed above, and the second of which describes an algorithm rather than something like what is in the article.

: Note that even if this article wasn't OR — and I assert that it is, per the Wikipedia definition — it would still be inappropriate since it's an un-cited, un-verifiable protologism.

: There are a number of areas of research, in programming and other fields, where there is no good alternative to existing technologies which solves a certain problem, or nothing published on a certain area of the field. That's fine — it's a great area in which to do research. But Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not]] the place to publish it.

: In closing I should add that I do welcome your contributions on established, verifiable methodologies such as relational databases, so please don't take this AfD personally. This is not a discussion of the '''merit''' of what you term "collection oriented programming," only its '''suitability''' for Wikipedia. --[[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 19:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

:'''''&nbsp;<span style="color:#CC6600;">AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.</span>'''''<br><small>&nbsp;Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:relist -->

*'''Delete''' as non-notable neologism. [[User:Dark Shikari|<span style="background-color:#DDDDFF; font-weight:bold"><span style="color:#0000FF;">Da</span><span style="color:#0000CC;">rk</span> <span style="color:#000099;">Sh</span><span style="color:#000066;">ik</span><span style="color:#000033;">ar</span><span style="color:#000000;">i</span></span>]] 01:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as non-notable neologism and/or original research. --[[User:Xrblsnggt|Xrblsnggt]] 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom.--[[User:Petaholmes|Peta]] 03:47, 28 July 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>