Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Pattern Repository
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wwwwolf (talk | contribs) at 08:48, 6 June 2007 (AfD closed, speedy keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 08:48, 6 June 2007 by Wwwwolf (talk | contribs) (AfD closed, speedy keep)
- 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 speedy keep. this nomination is rationale-less noise --> closed. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Portland Pattern Repository (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Procedural nomination, completion of user Wikidrone's incomplete nomination. Wikidrone gave the following reasoning on the talk page: "this article is useless noise --> crap". For myself, I would say speedy close, no reason given. Tobias Bergemann 06:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close - no reason given ;) --Haemo 08:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep No better reasons that "useless noise" or "crap" to delete an article that is over 3 years old and has around 150 edits? The Portland Pattern Repository is one of the oldest and best known sites for pattern languages and design patterns, in addition to being related to the original wiki. The Server Side describes it as:
- The original reference site for patterns. Frequented by the gang of 4 and their mentors (Kent Beck, Ward Cunningham).
- Scott Hanselman says "Seems that the concept of design patterns don't always enter the mind of the average programmer when they think of good design and opportunity for reuse. Fortunately there are lots of resources for the beginner. My favorite is the Portland Pattern Repository." O'Reilly Books refers to it, as does this paper at the ACM (see reference 50). DavidConrad 08:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable, and for more than one reason. And the unref tag was spurious -- the article is full of refs. Just because they are not in <ref></ref> format does not mean the article has no references. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, and also for the fact that it served as an incubator for the Extreme Programming movement. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:19, 4 June 2007 (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.