Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stamp (object-oriented programming)

Stamp (object-oriented programming)

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

new term, used by one author in one book. Has not gained traction yet. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too new and may not become widely used. Only a primary source is available, no secondary sources yet. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It's a well-defined concept that is gaining some traction amongst developers. However WP's dogma against online sources will inevitably lead to deletion here. When Factory Patterns for Dummies is published in a couple of years, future WP editors can come back and see this AfD to see how pointless their inevitable recreation work will be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley I'm a full time OO developer for many years, and I've not heard of it prior to this article. From what I can see its a term used in one book, by one author, and only usable in one language (javascript). The article currently has NO sources. I did some WP:BEFORE but the word "stamp" was a poor marketing choice, as its fairly difficult to get rid of the noise with such a generic term. But if you are aware of WP:RS using the term, now would be the time to bring them up, otherwise there is no chance of keeping the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. WP:RS excludes almost every useful source on every IT-related issue that's under a decade old.

Most of the discussion about stamp-like behaviour seems to be on the lines of how to do "factories with mixins" (a failing of trad. GoF factories). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, I think I disagree with your broad statement about IT and RS there are plenty of online sources I would consider RS (and books certainly aren't on a 10 year lag). If the "online sources" are all blogs (and blogs by non-notables) then yes, there is likely to be a problem here. But the alternative is basically throwing WP:GNG and WP:RS out the window for tech topics, which is also not a viable strategy. Under what criteria could a tech concept ever be deleted in that world? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]