Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table-oriented programming (2nd nomination)

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. Owen× ☎ 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table-oriented programming

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither of the two existing refs mention the subject. Searches turned up lots of mentions, mostly on unreliable sources. Could not find any in-depth coverage of the sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created here on Wikipedia directly by TimNelson (talk · contribs) at the same time as a Tim Nelson created https://wayland.github.io/table-oriented-programming/TOP/Introduction/What.xml that is the same thing. It is a violation of our no original research policy to use Wikipedia as a direct publication platform for a new thesis. It's not the same as the last time, true, Girth Summit, but it is equally as vague and woolly. Commenters on lobste.rs (that weren't those acknowledging a connection to the author) noted that it could cover practically anything where a table was somehow involved, and that's nowhere near being the level of peer review and acknowledgement by the world at large that this needs. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unsourced essay of synthesis and original research. From Day One, Wikipedia has never published original research. There are plenty of other places to publish this content, but not here. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to ping above - I had no recollection of having declined a speedy on this article, but the history tells me I did so I must have! My decline should not be read as any sort of endorsement of the article, I merely compared it with the previous version, saw that it wasn't the same text, noted that there was a >10 year gap between the two, and thought that a speedy deletion wasn't appropriate. No objection from me if the consensus is to delete this version. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.