Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object-oriented design ontology


 * 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. The comments since the relisting make the consensus clear. Deor (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Object-oriented design ontology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is pure Original Research. There are no references to the actual topic. There are references to the concept of ontology and references to the fact that object-oriented methods clearly fall into subpart and sublcass hierarchies (as does just about any form of knowledge) but no references (and to my knowledge no such references currently exists, hence OR) to the actual topic. Also, as I documented on Talk page, if we keep this article why shouldn't we have a topic on EVERY possible topic that could be represented via an ontology, which would mean thousands of new topics since just about any form of structured information can be represented by an ontology. MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just want to add that since posting this I did another search. I found a couple of online sources that were relevant but they were a PhD or Masters thesis and a project site at a University computer science department. I do think it's not a bad idea and could see it meriting an article at some point but my interpretation of notable is that if the idea is at the thesis or school project level it's not yet article worthy. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete&mdash;Concur with nom. Object-oriented design is ontologizable, but the ontolization itself has not been treated as a subject in WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - 3 reference links are dead. 1 reference is very short, does not reference ontology and is a non-authoritative blog. 1 reference discusses object oriented design, but not ontology. 1 suggests that the practice of ontology arises from object oriented design but does not suggest that a specific OOD ontology exists.  The last reference, A Theory of Object-Oriented Design, purports to "define an ontology that serves as a frame of reference for the discussion in the essential concepts of O-O design."  However, it thereafter no longer discusses OOD ontology as a subject.  The article may make an excellent proposal for a thesis, but I don't think it is appropriate as a Wikipedia article.--Rpclod (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I too think the subject is insufficiently specifically notable, following the arguments just above. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. No evidence of notability. ~KvnG 14:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete An article based on phrases like "Possible constructs that may be included" and "the various relations that may exist amongst these constructs" indicates that this article is speculative original research. This is not a discrete, notable topic and this article does not belong in this encyclopedia. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:29, 6 August 2014 (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.