Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intentional programming


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Intentional Programming
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Sorry if I'm not wording things well, I don't contribute to wikipedia much aside from occasional spelling and grammar improvements. I guess I'm trying to say (as a software developer) that I don't think this is notable. This article seems to exist only to hype a company with a poorly defined paradigm. I was sent a generic recruitment email from Intentional Software that mostly linked to this page, which seems constructed to make that company sound like it's doing more than it is. I'm not convinced that this is an actual separate paradigm, it talks a lot about what it could do in very abstract terms, but does not go into much depth on problems being approached differently. Darklink259 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. I see what you mean, about both the article and the idea, and it suggests potential WP:COI issues if the company is actively using this article in their recruitment materials. But I think this is notable in the Wikipedia sense - coverage in multiple reliable sources - even though it hasn't really taken off as a concept. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue that this is only a concept of a concept, that the so-called paradigm, since it doesn't seem to be described in any detail, doesn't actually exist. I guess this could be a "programming concept", or something like that, but I don't think it's correct for it to be called a "paradigm". Darklink259 (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability established by included refs and external links. ~KvnG 00:31, 7 March 2015 (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.