Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ousterhout's dichotomy


 * 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ousterhout&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This page is based off of only one source (in the IEEE magazine, but not their scientific journal). Does Wikipedia really support pages for low impact magazine articles? Tt's low impact in the sense that no external references besides the original article are provided. If you 'google' Ousterhout's dichotomy the major results are this wikipedia article and other public editable sources.

Moreover, it include a significant amount of research not in the original article viz. - How is Java compiled to machine code? In fact, it compiles to object code. But, so does Perl, Ruby (as of 1.9), and Python. - How do any of the scripting languages mentioned not support advanced data structures? Perl, Ruby, and Python all support any data structure that you can contrive in C.

Finally, it has been cited as having problems, that haven't been resolved, since 2008.

This needs to be removed.

Sirmacbain (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's two sources. The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, as cited in the very first revision of the article, is the other. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The second source you mention is also a publicly collaborated site. Seriously, this only exist in its original article and on publicly collaborative sites. I wonder if the reason it's on FODC is because it has a Wikipedia page - ad nausea.Sirmacbain (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FOLDOC is not user-created content. And the article's history page indicates it was copied from FOLDOC, so your second accusation is incorrect. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per nontrivial number of Google Scholar mentions. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Cybercobra's link appears to provide evidence of the depth and range of coverage required by WP:GNG. Together with the two sources already in the article, there seems to be enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2010 (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.