Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object-oriented SQL

Object-oriented SQL

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

No sources since 2009. The article consists of two sentences and I am actually not sure what they are about. I suggest it be WP:TNT'd. — Keφr 14:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could the nominator actually explain what is wrong with the many sources in GBooks which refer to ""Object-oriented SQL" and "OSQL"? Could the nominator also explain why this can't be redirected to SQL? James500 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this article uses none of them. There is no useful content in this article, it borders on {{db-nocontext}}. Having it as a WP:REDLINK for a while would encourage creation of a better-written article.
Also, where is it established that "Object-oriented SQL" is the same as "OSQL"? Databases do not seem to be your area of expertise. — Keφr 16:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - This source does appear to say that OSQL is an abbreviation for Object-oriented SQL. It refers to "a prototype object oriented SQL language (OSQL)". James500 (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases. There isn't a single entity called "Object Oriented SQL", nor is it a particular technique that has been discussed in the peer-reviewed literature. Rather, this is simply a descriptive term that has been used across multiple software projects. For example, SQL:1999 is "characterized as 'object-oriented SQL'", ESQL2 is "an object-oriented SQL with F-Logic semantics", UniSQL's SQIJX is an "object-oriented SQL", etc. Particular implementations may be notable (e.g., IRIS OSQL), but as best I can tell, the topic at hand is not. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases per Lesser Cartographies. James500 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. Deletion in such cases where improvement is required is done by means of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew Davidson. I'm pretty sure the nom hadn't read WP:TNT, as it has to do with rewriting articles, which s/he is not proposing. That being said, the article still has a WP:RS problem in that while several entities have been described as "objected-oriented SQL", I've not been able to find any sources that discuss "Object-oriented SQL" as such. If you're aware of any such WP:RS along those lines, I'd be happy to reconsider my !vote. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is a general concept rather than a specific implementation. There seem to be numerous sources which discuss various proposals and particular instances - see the books and scholar links above. I'm not seeing the problem. As for the nominator, they declare, "I am a deletionist ... I have little time for content improvements" and so presumably that's why they propose to destroy rather than improve this page. This is not our general policy though. Andrew (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]