Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programming in the large
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncle G's major work 'bot (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 20 September 2005 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Programming in the large moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programming in the large). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 17:07, 20 September 2005 by Uncle G's major work 'bot (talk | contribs) (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Programming in the large moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programming in the large)
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 01:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Programming in the large is a standard concept in computer sciences. I (literally) can't see the motivation of this vfd. Ejrrjs | What? 22:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I agree whole-heartedly with Ejffjs. Programming in the large is a very important and standard concept. Is this dispute possibly a joke?70.18.196.34 07:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How is this distinct from Software engineering?
- Keep. I'm in agreement with the two previous authors, but I reccommend them reading about how the VfD system works. Are you opposed to the article or the VfD? (I'm pretty sure I know what you're saying, but it helps to clarify that.) Also, there is no reason stated by the nominator, which leaves me quite suspicious. A Google test returns 38,100 results for the title (in quotes), so it seems notable. BPEL is deemed important, I guess, and it builds on this, so it too must be important. -mysekurity 04:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Standard concept which is one approach to Software Engineering, but I can use an SE techniques individually or in an XP pairing. William Avery 16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously. Not only is this a most appropriate topic for an article with a widely-familiar title, but the content so far isn't bad at all. Whoever submitted this was on crack. Deco 00:06, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.