Revision as of 13:56, 21 July 2006 edit Craig Stuntz (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,533 edits clarify reasons for AfD. I thought they were pretty clear before, but.... ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:36, 22 July 2006 edit undo Tablizer (talk \| contribs) 730 edits →[[Collection Oriented Programming]] Next edit →
Line 20: : 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) 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 collections/data-structures as first-class and coherant objects/features/units. -Tablizer

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