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

Revision as of 11:13, 21 July 2006

Revision as of 13:56, 21 July 2006

Line 10:

"Collection oriented programming" is simply a name that encompasses a wide variety of tools and languages. It was not coined by the author of the above page. --Tablizer (7/20/2006)

: That the term is "not common enough usage to justify an article" is '''''precisely''''' the issue I stated above. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, but read the first sentence. I'm not sure why you think I have an issue with colloquial language outside of Wikipedia since I didn't write that, and, like you, I don't think it's a reason to delete. I brought up the page I linked because it's one of the few places which use the term at all and it explicitly says it's a protologism. I'll restate what I wrote above in more verbose terms in case my wording was confusing:

:* There are only 27 unique Google hits for the term.

:* One of them states that it is not an established methodology or term.

:* Some of the hits are more or less abandoned pages. For example, [http://tunes.org/wiki/APL this page] was imported from another Wiki, and it's been removed from the original source.

:* Some of the hits (like [http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/mail-www/haskell/msg01396.html this one] or [http://www.etoile-project.org/etoile/mediawiki/index.php?title=TrackerKit this])use it in a very generic, descriptive sense rather than as the name of a methodology.

:* The article itself gives no citations for the term.

:* The document which appears to be the most legitimate potential citation, a paper by James Brakefield, appears to be unreferenced by anyone other than the author. I searched the ACM's guide to computing literature, a comprehensive index of nearly all computing research ever published, and found only one citation, by Brakefield.

:* Note that there is no exception to the [[WP:NEO|avoid neologisms guideline]] for computer-related topics. The issue of usage of a term on the web vs. in print is a red herring here since this phrase isn't frequently used in either place.

: In short, I see no reason to believe that this is a [[WP:N|notable]] or [[WP:V|verifiable]] methodology, and quite a few reasons to believe that it is not. --[[User:Craig Stuntz|Craig Stuntz]] 13:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' on grounds of notability and original research unless references are provided. Heck, I myself could cook up a few "programming metholodogies" if I tried.... --[[User:SJK|SJK]] 11:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)