Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accumulate and fire
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. [NOTE: A deletion review has been made for this article here. Also, a copy of the referenced talk page has been moved over to User:Caudax/Talk_Accumulate_and_fire in order to preserve the context of this AfD. -Caudax 03:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)] [reply]
The result was Delete — lacks 3rd party source to establish notability. If you want to request a user copy so you can properly source tis article, just request one. --Haemo 00:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accumulate and fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Nonnotable concept in computer programming; although the article was created as early as in 2003 (!) there is no traces of reliable source in the 'net: the most sure red flag for computinmg-related articles. `'Míkka 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Interesting, I'm sometimes programming this way... :( . Without sources to back the concept up however notability is not proven. 1redrun Talk 08:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if I remember right, this is a known and documented anti-pattern. JIP | Talk 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remember it right, refernce please. I failed to find one, hence nomination. `'Míkka 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This style exists, and yes it's well known. M.V.E.i. 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References, please. `'Míkka 21:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The virtual absence of references in google, with sole exception of perl design patterns wiki means that it is someone pet neologism withiut any evidence of notable acceptance. Mukadderat 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is useful information, and a common antipattern. What needs to happen is a source needs to be cited, possibly something listing this problem under a different name. Wikipedia is full of useful information lacking enough sources, and the correct solution is not to go around deleting it.bvbellomo 09:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC) The edit is by 12.168.81.98 (talk · contribs)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP. Christ, I've gone through an argument arguing why the notability tag should be deleted exactly to prevent this deletion request. I find your request for deletion, in absence of consulting the pertinent talk page highly distasteful. (For the record, my reasons opposing this deletion have been enumerated in length on the linked talk page, where they have been made before this deletion request was made, although Mikka apparently hasn't seen fit to respond to them. Furthermore, the strong wording has been used because this has been a point that I've discussed rather strongly, so to have someone blithely ignore it offends me. My message to this extent is clear: DONT DO THAT. You can apply this statement both to deleting the article and to ignoring someone's highly pertinent comments on the matter when attempting to proceed democratically.) -Caudax 21:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel offended, but i don't think your comments have been ignored; rather, they just don't address the problem. This article has been standing without sources (or substantial content) for literally years now: unless you can find reliable secondary sources to back up the book this was published in (i've tried, and failed), there can be no argument for keeping it. —Piet Delport 2007-09-17 01:32
- Well, I do have a feeling that Mikka neglected the talk page when initiating the deletion request. At any rate, I do believe they address the issues at hand. Namely, I've specifically gone over the significance of the Google results, why even without sources we should keep the article, why notability isn't an iron-clad standard by which we should delete this article, why no original research should not be applied to this article, why this isn't an uncommon, esoteric practice (instead, it's a fairly common way to code monolithic programs), and why this isn't a neologism as much as it is a tentative title for the programming practice. Furthermore, the presence of programmers that write code this way is akin to that of a blue sky. You see it everywhere, and you don't go through elaborate proofs to prove that it indeed exists. Programmers tend to write code this way, we can see that. The sky is blue, we can see that too, or do you believe that it should be more appropriately "The sky is blue.[citation needed]"? At any rate, if need be, examples can probably be found and provided. Beyond that, I realize that the article has been around for years, but I'd like to attribute that to being a result of neglect and insufficient participation rather than the article being "beyond help." Also, thanks for participating. -Caudax 20:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out the sheer irony in my comparison to the sky being blue, considering that the article, Sky, has no less than four citations concerning the sky being blue. Although for the sake of maintaining my point, they're only providing citations on it being "the result of the air's scattering of sunlight," not on the sky being blue itself. -Caudax 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no analogy: Sky is about the sky in general, and has more than enough references (and could get hundreds or thousands more solid ones on demand). This article is about a design pattern coined by one book, with no independent references. —Piet Delport 2007-09-18 22:13
- There is indeed. Here are some Google searches: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I think we've hit over a thousand. Also, the use of the term coinage does confirm that you are disputing the naming convention, to which I refer back that this is moreso a tentative title for the practice. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a single mention of PDP's Accumulate and Fire pattern anywhere.
It seems like you're defending not the subject of this article, but the general notion of global state sharing: this is perfectly fine, but belongs in other, more appropriate articles (e.g. Shared memory and Global variable), not this one. —Piet Delport 2007-09-19 23:03
- I don't see a single mention of PDP's Accumulate and Fire pattern anywhere.
- There is indeed. Here are some Google searches: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I think we've hit over a thousand. Also, the use of the term coinage does confirm that you are disputing the naming convention, to which I refer back that this is moreso a tentative title for the practice. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no analogy: Sky is about the sky in general, and has more than enough references (and could get hundreds or thousands more solid ones on demand). This article is about a design pattern coined by one book, with no independent references. —Piet Delport 2007-09-18 22:13
- I believe i've already addressed your points: i hope we're not talking past each other. I don't think any reason has been given for this article to be exempt from the no original research policy. (Frankly, i think it would need pretty extreme justification, for such a core policy.)
As i said on the talk page, it will probably be better to discuss general practice(s) on other, more appropriate articles, instead of dragging them into a battle over this obscure coinage. —Piet Delport 2007-09-18 22:13- Excuse me, I believe I made the last point in that discussion without you responding (not even to point out that I was missing the point and how I was missing the point of whatever you were saying, if such was the case), so it strikes me as a tad inaccurate to say that, especially considering that I have raised newer points in that post which went unaddressed. Also, I believe I addressed yours. Also, now that you've turned it against the naming convention, rather than the content itself, my point regarding whether it should be discarded on grounds of being a neologism is indeed applicable. Also, I fail to see a more appropriate article for the discussion of manipulating global variables with subroutines than an article exclusively devoted to the subject matter. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anything against the naming convention: it's the name used by the authors, after all. I'm saying that the content and coinage itself does not meet Wikipedia's standards. —Piet Delport 2007-09-19 23:03
- POST MERGE: I'm going to respond to all three posts here because rampant discussion forking is only going to make this a lot more annoying to read. Right, with that said. Re: "I don't see a single mention of PDP's Accumulate and Fire pattern anywhere." I don't see a single mention of it (PDP) in the article either, and just for certainty I did just go through every single revision to check, so my point, as it has been from the beginning, is that this is concerning the practice in general and not strictly in terms of how PDP views it. (Heck, I can't even see how we can make a differentiation between the two to begin with. PDP's accumulate and fire is about the practice in general itself. The only thing specific to PDP is the terminology.) Furthermore, the page itself makes no references to Perl at all, but instead makes references to COBOL and BASIC, so your claim that this article must be specific to PDP's version of accumulate and fire is even more bizarre. Once again, I've checked every single revision to be sure of this. (For historical purposes, this is the most recent revision as of this writing.) The only part of this article that is specific to PDP is the name "accumulate and fire," which I've put forth is more of a tentative title than anything else because it's just one way you could possibly name the subject matter. Too many globals itself is probably a more indicative title of the subject matter, although also misleading because it isn't the quantity but rather the use of global variables that constitutes this practice. Needless to say, your insistence that this article is meant to adhere to PDP's specific pattern is not only empirically disproved and nonsensical (in that PDP itself discusses the general practice) but also constitutes a neat form of odd specificity that would force us to be left with only PDP itself, forcing us to discard all other sources as irrelevant since they do not specifically conform to PDP which result in the article substantiating the claim of non-notability (which, truth be told, I am now somewhat tempted to suspect has been your intention all along in suddenly applying this criterion, seeing as it has been interestingly absent of all discussion prior to my involvement of those links, but I'll assume good faith anyway, especially considering your efforts to improve wikipedia, rather than assuming you would be disrupting wikipedia to prove a point for whatever reason, possibly your pride, in which case one would be gaming the system, which I take it would be quite unlike you), although you have for a while completely neglected my points on how we should ignore the notability guideline altogether with respect to this article, and perhaps that is merely because you disagree with my making this the occasional exception. (Then again, I largely disagree with these notability guidelines altogether.) Anyhow, merging the article into shared memory is also problematic since this is not exclusively inter-process communication we are discussing, and any attempts to expand it beyond that could potentially result in original research problems, although I suppose it should be possible to comment on how global variables can be taken to constitute a form of shared memory in intra-process communication. The article could be merged into the global variable article, as could the action at a distance article, but perhaps it is better to leave global variables themselves in one article and practices concerning them in another. Essentially, this is reasonable, but I see no real need. Re: "I never said anything against the naming convention." You discussed "dragging them into a battle over this obscure coinage," and coinage, as per dictionary.com, means "an invented or newly created word or phrase," although it can also mean "anything made, invented, or fabricated," for that matter. However, your comment about "the content and coinage" later differentiates the two, so you are evidently not discussing the content when referring to coinage but rather "an invented or newly created word or phrase" (which is synonymous with neologism), dragging the naming convention into the matter. Also, the naming convention is the only part of this article specific to PDP's accumulate and fire. Lastly, I did look into the matter with the editor Eep²/Gamer Eek, and I find mostly that he simply has his own view of how the world works, and finds people who disagree to be simply wrong. I suppose at least he didn't waste people's time that much with getting to the point that he thinks you're wrong, and then the discussion, if any, instead of going through a lengthy discussion whereupon it slowly becomes apparent that he thinks others are simply/unequivocally wrong. Beyond that, he probably also ran into a few issues with the cabal. You haven't, however, stated, how that relates to the discussion at hand, so I'm guessing (not sure) that you mean that you don't agree that you should ignore all instances of ignore all rules (WP:IIAR), but you haven't exactly reconciled this with your own criterion of "pretty extreme justification," so... maybe you really do agree with IIAR? Also, there's a lot I've mentioned before that you haven't responded to. At any rate, if you could answer, that would be nice. Thank you. -Caudax 07:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said anything against the naming convention: it's the name used by the authors, after all. I'm saying that the content and coinage itself does not meet Wikipedia's standards. —Piet Delport 2007-09-19 23:03
- Excuse me, I believe I made the last point in that discussion without you responding (not even to point out that I was missing the point and how I was missing the point of whatever you were saying, if such was the case), so it strikes me as a tad inaccurate to say that, especially considering that I have raised newer points in that post which went unaddressed. Also, I believe I addressed yours. Also, now that you've turned it against the naming convention, rather than the content itself, my point regarding whether it should be discarded on grounds of being a neologism is indeed applicable. Also, I fail to see a more appropriate article for the discussion of manipulating global variables with subroutines than an article exclusively devoted to the subject matter. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out the sheer irony in my comparison to the sky being blue, considering that the article, Sky, has no less than four citations concerning the sky being blue. Although for the sake of maintaining my point, they're only providing citations on it being "the result of the air's scattering of sunlight," not on the sky being blue itself. -Caudax 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I do have a feeling that Mikka neglected the talk page when initiating the deletion request. At any rate, I do believe they address the issues at hand. Namely, I've specifically gone over the significance of the Google results, why even without sources we should keep the article, why notability isn't an iron-clad standard by which we should delete this article, why no original research should not be applied to this article, why this isn't an uncommon, esoteric practice (instead, it's a fairly common way to code monolithic programs), and why this isn't a neologism as much as it is a tentative title for the programming practice. Furthermore, the presence of programmers that write code this way is akin to that of a blue sky. You see it everywhere, and you don't go through elaborate proofs to prove that it indeed exists. Programmers tend to write code this way, we can see that. The sky is blue, we can see that too, or do you believe that it should be more appropriately "The sky is blue.[citation needed]"? At any rate, if need be, examples can probably be found and provided. Beyond that, I realize that the article has been around for years, but I'd like to attribute that to being a result of neglect and insufficient participation rather than the article being "beyond help." Also, thanks for participating. -Caudax 20:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you feel offended, but i don't think your comments have been ignored; rather, they just don't address the problem. This article has been standing without sources (or substantial content) for literally years now: unless you can find reliable secondary sources to back up the book this was published in (i've tried, and failed), there can be no argument for keeping it. —Piet Delport 2007-09-17 01:32
- Sources, or delete. Without sources, it simply does not matter how useful or interesting anyone thinks this is: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing original ideas. —Piet Delport 2007-09-17 00:55
- I think I've given several responses to this line of reasoning already. In addition to that, I'll go back and point out that I'd like to ignore all rules to "to improve [and] maintain Wikipedia," as I've established before. -Caudax 20:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've asserted that the article is in a "fledgling state", but this simply isn't true: it's had 4 years—almost half a decade—for references to be found.
I don't believe you've actually established that ignoring the rules improves Wikipedia in this case. What about this article makes it an exception? —Piet Delport 2007-09-18 22:19- Now I believe I'm the one who already addressed the point, and I do hope we're not talking past each other. (As mentioned above, lack of progress is due to neglect (grand total of 19 edits before you put up the notability tag), not because the article is irremediable. Thus, the fact four years have passed does not at all prove that efforts to improve the article are futile.) Furthermore, this is dangerously bordering on wikilawyering, points two and three specifically, but I'd like to point out that on the talk page, the second part of the third paragraph of the post you haven't addressed on the talk page yet specifically goes over this. If you don't find my reasons to be sufficient to suit your tastes (and judging by your criterion of "pretty extreme justification" and fine appreciation of WP:IIAR[5], nothing short of "Global nuclear war will happen if we don't ignore the rule." seems to be sufficient justification for your tastes), that is fine. If you insist that I failed to answer your request, however, that would just be silly. Lastly, thanks for sharing your thoughts. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking past each other. :)
As i said above, it seems that you're talking about a discussion of global state sharing in general, while i'm talking about PDP's Accumulate and Fire pattern (the specific subject of this article). There's obviously nothing wrong with the former, and Wikipedia needs it: it should just be covered in other, more appropriate articles (see above), not this one. —Piet Delport 2007-09-19 23:03 - Addendum: For the record, that discussion you link to involves a problem editor who continually claimed IAR as a catch-all excuse for disruptive editing (for which he has since been unanimously banned from Wikipedia). —Piet Delport 2007-09-20 00:58
- We're talking past each other. :)
- Now I believe I'm the one who already addressed the point, and I do hope we're not talking past each other. (As mentioned above, lack of progress is due to neglect (grand total of 19 edits before you put up the notability tag), not because the article is irremediable. Thus, the fact four years have passed does not at all prove that efforts to improve the article are futile.) Furthermore, this is dangerously bordering on wikilawyering, points two and three specifically, but I'd like to point out that on the talk page, the second part of the third paragraph of the post you haven't addressed on the talk page yet specifically goes over this. If you don't find my reasons to be sufficient to suit your tastes (and judging by your criterion of "pretty extreme justification" and fine appreciation of WP:IIAR[5], nothing short of "Global nuclear war will happen if we don't ignore the rule." seems to be sufficient justification for your tastes), that is fine. If you insist that I failed to answer your request, however, that would just be silly. Lastly, thanks for sharing your thoughts. -Caudax 23:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've asserted that the article is in a "fledgling state", but this simply isn't true: it's had 4 years—almost half a decade—for references to be found.
- I think I've given several responses to this line of reasoning already. In addition to that, I'll go back and point out that I'd like to ignore all rules to "to improve [and] maintain Wikipedia," as I've established before. -Caudax 20:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think associate author should add some picture and citation so that it gives a clear view. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 07:47, 18 September 2007 (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.