Talk:Table-oriented programming: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Adding {{old AfD multi}} for prior AfDs related to this article. Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/NewArticleAFDTagger |
Christian75 (talk | contribs) Assessment (Low): +banner shell (Start), +Computing (Rater) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|date1 = August 21, 2006 |result1 = '''delete''' |page1 = Table-oriented programming |
|date1 = August 21, 2006 |result1 = '''delete''' |page1 = Table-oriented programming |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=Start |1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Computing |importance=Low}} |
|||
}} |
|||
== Hoax? == |
|||
{{u|Uncle G}} - a blast from the past. You looked into this in the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table-oriented programming|deletion discussion in 2006]]. I just declined a G4 speedy on this because it's substantially different from the deleted version, but if this subject isn't a thing... [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span> <span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 11:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: Hi! |
|||
: Thanks for declining the speedy. |
|||
: I was wondering if inclusion in Wikipedia would be reconsidered in light of the historical section (which I doubt was present on the previous edition, though I'm happy to be proved wrong); I was hoping that the historical section would indicate greater notability than previously assumed. |
|||
: My opinion is that, regardless of the name used, the subject of the article is a thing. I'd be happy with a "rename" (or even merge) consensus, but thought that, whether the name is right or not, at least the page content should be retained. |
|||
: The reason I chose this name is because, although it's not widely used, I think it's the most accurate. |
|||
: If I haven't followed correct process, apologies; the text on recreating a deleted page said that if the content were significantly different than previously included, I was to go ahead. |
|||
: Thanks! --[[User:TimNelson|TimNelson]] ([[User talk:TimNelson|talk]]) 22:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 23:57, 28 December 2024
 | This article was nominated for deletion on August 21, 2006. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Hoax?
[edit]Uncle G - a blast from the past. You looked into this in the deletion discussion in 2006. I just declined a G4 speedy on this because it's substantially different from the deleted version, but if this subject isn't a thing... Girth Summit (blether) 11:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi!
- Thanks for declining the speedy.
- I was wondering if inclusion in Wikipedia would be reconsidered in light of the historical section (which I doubt was present on the previous edition, though I'm happy to be proved wrong); I was hoping that the historical section would indicate greater notability than previously assumed.
- My opinion is that, regardless of the name used, the subject of the article is a thing. I'd be happy with a "rename" (or even merge) consensus, but thought that, whether the name is right or not, at least the page content should be retained.
- The reason I chose this name is because, although it's not widely used, I think it's the most accurate.
- If I haven't followed correct process, apologies; the text on recreating a deleted page said that if the content were significantly different than previously included, I was to go ahead.
- Thanks! --TimNelson (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)