Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object Prevalence


 * 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   keep. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Object Prevalence

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Full disclosure: I'm the original article creator. This was previously PRODded as "this is just spam" and "lets not allow article like this to ruin wikipedia", and subsequently deleted. I restored it because I contest the PROD. However, I'm bringing this now to AfD, because I'm honestly teetering on whether this thing should be here or not. On the bad side, the article is crappily written by My Incompetent Hand, and doesn't cite sources that much. The article may have also been touched a little bit by the creator of concept. However, "Object prevalence" does get me 277 distinct Google hits, it was discussed in Slashdot and IBM developerWorks, and there's multiple independent implementations of the idea. I'm regrettably not following our Notability criteria that well these days so I don't know if this is enough. I've brought it here mainly for discussion since I disagree this would be "spam" and we should at least try. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and just checked Google Scholar above; some of the articles seem to be related to Prevayler or other Prevalence frameworks. Regrettably I don't have more time right now to be more thorough... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, doesn't seem to be spam or otherwise deleteable. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources seem strong enough.  is quite solid and well-linked to by things like .  Add in this talk  and we have met WP:N.  Hobit (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article strikes me as so seriously lacking in context that I could easily understand why other editors might find it unintelligible.  It's uncertain from the article whether this is some kind of management philosophy or a product of some sort.  On the merits of the subject itself, I would question whether we really need detailed articles about every label given to a management plan or "model" for supervising computer programmers or making collective programming more efficient.  These things tend to be rather esoteric, and of limited interest outside of corporate computer programming, which may make them not notable.  They also need to be carefully watched for commercial conflict of interest, as well as bad corporate prose style.  Not sure whether Slashdot counts as a reliable source, either; no opinion about the IBM site.  That said, no opinion about the merits of the current article.  It surely can be improved, and be clearer as to what it's about, so I'm willing to wait.  Note also that it should move to Object prevalence if kept.  That is what the Prevayler article links to, whatever that is. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Probably keep-worthy. You might want to ask over at WP:Wikiproject Computing to see if anyone over there might give you some help. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A fair number of mentions on Slashdot and O'Reilly books on the subject make it keep-worthy. I've moved the page too. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

comment- page was poorly named, the more commonly used name as discovered by Tux, seems to be "object persistence"- I think more hits are evident for that name. Sticky Parkin 03:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously "object persistence" is an important topic in programming and wikipedia should mention it. In fact, it already does: Persistence (computer science). "Object prevalence" has a similar meaning, yet it does not belong to computer science: it is a made-up buzzword to promote the Prevayler "framework". Then Merge to Prevayler until this pattern becomes a recognized standard(never?). --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I now find myself agreeing with M4gnum0n and the page should be merged. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * okay, but that page has borderline notability too IMHO. Sticky Parkin 00:03, 11 October 2008 (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.