Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stamp (object-oriented 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 delete. If/when this becomes an important idea, people will write about it in reliable sources. And when that happens, we can use those sources to justify recreating this article. But for now, the consensus is it's just a neologism with no reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Stamp (object-oriented programming)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

new term, used by one author in one book. Has not gained traction yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too new and may not become widely used. Only a primary source is available, no secondary sources yet. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * weak keep It's a well-defined concept that is gaining some traction amongst developers. However WP's dogma against online sources will inevitably lead to deletion here. When Factory Patterns for Dummies is published in a couple of years, future WP editors can come back and see this AfD to see how pointless their inevitable recreation work will be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a full time OO developer for many years, and I've not heard of it prior to this article. From what I can see its a term used in one book, by one author, and only usable in one language (javascript). The article currently has NO sources. I did some WP:BEFORE but the word "stamp" was a poor marketing choice, as its fairly difficult to get rid of the noise with such a generic term. But if you are aware of WP:RS using the term, now would be the time to bring them up, otherwise there is no chance of keeping the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my point. WP:RS excludes almost every useful source on every IT-related issue that's under a decade old.
 * Most of the discussion about stamp-like behaviour seems to be on the lines of how to do "factories with mixins" (a failing of trad. GoF factories). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hrm, I think I disagree with your broad statement about IT and RS there are plenty of online sources I would consider RS (and books certainly aren't on a 10 year lag). If the "online sources" are all blogs (and blogs by non-notables) then yes, there is likely to be a problem here. But the alternative is basically throwing WP:GNG and WP:RS out the window for tech topics, which is also not a viable strategy. Under what criteria could a tech concept ever be deleted in that world? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Blog" on WP has two meanings: a prejudicial bias against the hosting platform (not the content) because the letters "b-l-o-g" or "wordpress" appear in the path names, and an unchallengeable excuse (see also copyvio) for our persistent deletionist trolls to delete stuff, without having to pay attention to either content or author credibility. This is after all the site that has prodded or AfDed the likes of Martin Fowler and Aaron Swartz before now. This is not how it's meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unable to find any other sources (besides the book) that even mention this concept, let alone establish notability. APerson (talk!) 18:13, 22 June 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.