- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. krimpet✽ 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AntiPatterns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article is promotional and has no good independent sources. We have a separate article on the topic Anti-pattern Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If it really spawned the concept of anti-patterns doesn't that make it significant? But that image has got to go. WillOakland (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think it's marginally useful information. If it's kept it needs to be completely rewritten. It's both promotional and defensive currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.23.39 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Anti-pattern. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable book in the development of an important concept in software development. 248 citations in Google scholar. Reviews: [1][2][3][4]. It's used in courses. And it won an notable award. Jfire (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G11. Article written by Skip McCormick, one of the authors of the books which present the subject of the article. "AntiPatterns" seems to be a neologism that makes one of its first appearances in these books. Author of article in question has edited only this article and topics in his userspace. There are no independent citations here at all, except for an uncited mention of an award in Jolt magazine. B.Wind (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cleaned up the article and cited the Jolt award and several reviews. It wasn't a G11 candidate to begin with, but now it's actually a decent article. And by the way, "anti-pattern" is a term that's some 15 years old now and well established in this field. Jfire (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am Computer Scientist and I learn about Design Patterns and also AntiPatterns in Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. I read this book: it is main guide about anti-patterns. Another universities in my country uses this book also (in English!). Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the reviews constitute significant independent coverage, and winning the Jolt award is also distinctive. As a side note, I'm familiar with the term "anti-pattern", as are others I know, so the book must have had some influence =] GracenotesT § 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.