Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theoretical foundation of polymorphism


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical foundation of polymorphism
Old page I'd committed to delete, but never got around to it. A dead link, too. VKokielov 05:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No one seems to want to maintain it, so delete.TheRingess 05:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Some of the content in the article duplicates the Polymorphism (object-oriented programming) article. The rest is unencyclopedic. The Rod 15:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Factually incorrect. Although the article is more or less internally consistent, the concept it describes is not polymorphism and it is not foundational.  See my comments on the talk page.  Cjoev 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 21:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —Ruud 01:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Allan McInnes (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wrong (and redundant).  --bmills 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - incorrect, original research, unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-20 13:17Z 
 * Delete per Quarl, Cjoev, bmills. --Mgreenbe 14:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. (Can I vote that way?)  "Theoretical foundations of polymorphism" is an interesting and encyclopedic topic in type theory, and it might at some point deserve it's own article.  But not this article. --EngineerScotty 19:08, 20 February 2006 (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.