Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object-oriented SQL

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 was redirect to Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 21:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 - so 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]

Andrew, you've stated the situation better than I did: the topic is indeed a general concept, and I think we agree that we don't (yet) have any WP:RS that discusses the general concept. I don't know how to take the implementation-specific sources we do have and write an article on the general concept without heading off into WP:OR. (There may be a way to do it that I don't know about, which is why I'm asking, not arguing.)

As to Keφr: I rescued his nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEC µPD7720 over the weekend, and we've butted heads on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CssQuery. When I started out, I had a few noms here blow up in my face before I figured out what was going on. He's learning (and you're helping him to learn) that WP:TNT should be used sparingly (if ever) as a rationale, and that announcing that one is a deletionist is going to raise opposition regardless of the merits of the argument. All that aside, this kind of article isn't that uncommon, and I'd like your advice in how to deal with this instance and the general case. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases. I was unable to find anything like a survey of OOSQL variants. There are prominent examples like SQL/OLB in SQL:2011, Structured types, and to a lesser extent, LINQ. But listing these without an underlying secondary source/survey backing up our opinions would be synthesis on our part. The term is used in the literature and is verifiable, however, so a redirect is warranted. Object-oriented_programming#Object-orientation_and_databases is a reasonable target. --Mark viking (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2014 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.