Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exclusive relationship

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive relationship

edit
Exclusive relationship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

As is within the article, is either a WP:NEO that isn't notable, or a WP:DICDEF. I've guessing neo. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Y'know, exclusive relationships between data points in the world of computer programming is worthwhile. Kind of reads like a dictionary defenition, doesn't it? Wellll... I think it can be expanded some to go into the history of the development, but I see it as a reference to one of the fundamental actions of database programming. Pretty significant, actually.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. Rescue time? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - I would transwiki this page to Wiktionary instead. Reads more like dictionary piece. ThePointblank (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no problem withdrawing *IF* it really is rescued, ie: sourced out with a few good sources, and adding only enough text that a layman can understand what the article is about. If it is really notable and such, then this is pretty reasonable. I am sure you can see why a layman would think it belongs here or in a dictionary. That really is a very general term. Sounds like "going steady" for computers.... PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 21:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article rescue squad is usually pretty on the ball with their rescues, if it takes too long, you could always ask for userfication to whoever has taken the case until it is finished. - Mgm|(talk) 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not seem to be a significant term of art; as someone in the business, I haven't heard it used so. Perhaps I am in a backwater, but googling turns up a lot of passing references to "mutually exclusive relationships" (with the first word invariably supplied) as something that needs no definition, because its meaning is obvious. The key phrase seems to be "mutually exclusive", and it tends to occur in the context of discussion of how to handle that property in entity-relationship modelling; but I see no evidence that there is any meaning to be attached beyond the commonplace sense of any of the words. Looking up the other relationship types leads mostly to unrelated articles, except for how "many-to-many" leads, poorly, to associative entity and junction table. It doesn't seem to me that the phrase even needs to be defined, much less have an article devoted to it. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And clean-up. I found hundreds of sources with over 70 available at online at Google books and 600+ at Google scholar. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick check of those google results shows that most of the results in the second case don't have anything to do with computer science at all; the first case isn't as extreme, but my review of the first few pages of results reinforces my position that the use of the words is intuitive and not terminological. Also, I keep seeing that word "mutually" as a qualifier. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be a case where those familiar with this "specialist topic" would be better to handle the issue. I have experience in CompSci, it might be helpful if others who also have experience and are posting here also say so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, so do I; I work with database/query design on a constant basis. That's why I picked up on this. It's obvious that DB design has to deal with mutually exclusive relationships, but I hadn't come across the notion being made into a term. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to read the results more closely. Of the four results pulled up by your linked search, two of them do not appear to be talking about entity relationships; one is definitely a false hit (the words fall across lines of table); only the first could be argued as referring to the concept. Searching for "mutually exclusive relationship" and "database" gave me three clear hits, which again tends to argue that there isn't a single term for this. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my logic, and I was trying to find a way to not have to delete, even though I am the nom. As it is now, without changing the name, I would still say delete. In truth, I found the article solely because I saw the title and wondered how they wrote an article about monogamy without it being a wp:dicdef. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What credentials make you a "database design people"? I provided a published source. VG ☎ 04:11, 3 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exclusive_relationship&oldid=1137837340"