Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Post-object programming

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 of the debate was Delete. Proto///type 09:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Post-object programming

I've searched references for the whole content of the article for too long, yet haven't been lucky. I've already asked for them in the talkl page again and again, with no answer. The original article had a whole section which was nonsense (see Talk page), so I believe the article's topic is completely made up, or maybe original research by some non-expert in the topic. In conclusion, the article is non-verifiable and (consequently) perhaps original research. euyyn 00:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• If this were a notable programming method, one would expect a fair amount of google hits (since it is related to computers). But this isn't the case. Thus, I must say, delete. -- Where 00:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Expand or delete. I think it might be a valid article except that no references have been given for the article. Unless sources can be given, delete. - DNewhall 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I repeated my search for references (with google: "post-object programming" -"is a new generation" -"aspect-oriented programming", trying to avoid WP mirrors and pages about AOP - which says it's a kind of Post-object P.) and among the 95 results found 2 (non-chinesse) pages about the topic:

Post-Object Programming for Computational Science, which says a little and gives 2 emails to ask for further details

Post-object programming, which lists our WP article as one of 2 web references (the other one being the Cecil's homepage).

I now think the article is nothing but academic propaganda for someone's non-notable research. --euyyn 01:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or, failing that, Redirect to Aspect-oriented programming for now with leave to rewrite - according to [1] and [2], AOP is a subset of POP. But the current POP article really seems to just be describing AOP. Still, the term is clearly notable, even if this article is incomplete. BigDT 02:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete - The content is mostly weak and the few things of note are well covered elsewhere. The implication that these things are post-OO is simply wrong; delegation, mixins and multiple dispatch are an intergral part of OO. I've only ever come across this as an expression used in a descriptive sense and it not deserving of it's own page. MartinSpamer
• delete - another unsourced, unverified article. These do a disservice to WP. BlueValour 22:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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.