Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental pattern


 * 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 delete. Note: No content sourced to merge and no mention of this topic in its parent article. czar 15:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Fundamental pattern

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been unsourced apparently since its creation in 2004. It claims that fundamental patterns are part of design patterns, but Software design pattern makes no reference to them. I can’t find any reliable sources to support this article, but if ‘fundamental pattern’ is really a valid term, perhaps this should be merged into Software design pattern. Mccapra (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: it is difficult to distinguish between the term "fundamental design pattern" being used in sources according to its definition in this article, and sources using this phrase without that meaning (i.e. "The fundamental design pattern of this system is..."). Most of the sources I found use the latter, not the former. One exception (there may be more): Agerbo and Cornils 1998 (not cited in article, usage suspect). Enterprisey (talk!) 07:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is primarily a list of unsourced examples. Dgpop (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Systemic bias and recentism, supposing that software is all that matters. In fact, patterns are a commonplace concept in all sorts of crafts and manufacture.  When one looks for sources for the phrase, one therefore finds books like the Parisian Ladies' Tailoring System. Andrew D. (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2019 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.