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

Revision as of 18:42, 22 July 2006

Revision as of 19:38, 22 July 2006

Line 24:

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. It is a concept found 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)