Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checking type instead of membership

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and I will merge this with Object-oriented programming for now. This is a tough one, because there are six delete votes and three merge votes. Often (probably usually) I will call 6-3 a delete. However, the deciding factor is that many of the merge votes gave fairly well founded reasons for their votes, therefore I will use my discretion and let the comments decide this close debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Checking type instead of membership
Silly mistake made by silly computer programmers. Not notable. r3m0t talk 15:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a pattern, it's just a programming mistake. Patterns have situations and forces and all that. Gazpacho 16:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable, no article needed. -Sotak 16:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete? Do people actually do this? ;) To be fair, though, anti-patterns include a lot of silly programmer mistakes, such as busy spin and double-checked locking, that are based on misconceptions about how to write code in a modern OS or language. Perhaps there should be a section of common programming errors that this can go into? --FreelanceWizard 23:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What next, Extra semicolon after for statement? --Carnildo 23:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a topic for full article. Pavel Vozenilek 02:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. Together with the rest of the anti-patterns, it makes for an interesting collection of programming mistakes, which I at least feel I get something out of looking through. Oh, and yes, people do actually do this: I have. BenBildstein 04:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. I agree, a merge is a good idea. This is more common then one might think. In my experience people often search the API for a solution instead of the language reference, and thus end up with stuff like this. Bergsten 00:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, into what article would you suggest merging this into? --FreelanceWizard 11:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably into a new article, but merged with other articles that more or less only represents a programming mistake. Or does one already exist? Bergsten 11:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify myself. In many cases where I have seen this the programmer understood what the code did and used it accordingly. The program worked just fine, but the code did not take advantage of the OOP features available in the language. Bergsten 12:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, don't delete. Maybe into Object-oriented programming or maybe into a big article with some other anti-patterns not notable enough for their own articles (for example, Escalating commitment to a single, failing course of action). —Keenan Pepper 08:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.