Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fully qualified name

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 keep. Sandstein 08:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully qualified name

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

Nonnotable topic. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is widely used. I've added just one of the many available refs for its use in Perl – I'm sure the other uses can be ref'ed just as easily. A full definition is too complex for Wiktionary, which was the other alternative I considered. —SMALL JIM 23:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete There is no real content to this article, Wiktionary would be much more accepting of this than wikipedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah did a very good job on the clean up and expansion of the of the article and has added sufficient references to verify its content, I still feel this would go better on Wikitonary, but maybe it works here to. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

funny, i've been thinking all day about switching to delete because of the discussion below. but thanks for the compliment!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. WP:SYNT assembly of various computer-related issues where "fully qualified" appears. A source discussing "Fully qualified name" as a subject, and which gives at least some of these as examples has yet to be presented. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second, necessary, part of WP:SYNTH is "...that advances a position". I don't think that any position is being advanced here - unless it's that the topic is notable :) —SMALL JIM 17:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Nobody presented a source that this is a remarkable topic. Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu wa Za Banga is the fully qualified name of Mobutu. Should that go into the article as well? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And someone should delete Fully qualified as well, which is worse than this. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the current article is crap, no that is not a good reason to send it to AfD (WP:BEFORE). —Ruud 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just tidied up the article and added a number of refs to show its notability. —SMALL JIM 09:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new definition you added [1] on hierarchical structures does cover most of the examples on a WP:COMMONSENSE level. I think the article is salvageable now, but still needs considerable clean-up. The old definition should probably be deleted. Some of the examples also appear to be incorrect generalizations, e.g. confusing the concepts from ontology with a particular ontology language from a certain paper. Uʔ (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article. Perhaps it needs an {{expert}} tag. —SMALL JIM 08:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—i cleaned up a little more, added some more sources, the term is notable per gng. agree about the ontology example; i took it out because the only sentence the source would have supported doesn't belong in the article.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately you added a book about Tcl/Tk to as source of a general reference superseding that of a computing dictionary. Probably not a good move. I also don't see where they give that definition on the page cited (fails WP:V). It illustrates the difficulties in writing this article properly. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - sigh, yes, of course you're right. although the Tcl/Tk source seems to me to be talking about what a fully qualified name is in general, rather than just in Tcl/Tk. i didn't mean the source to support the definition, but just merely the fact that fully qualified names don't rely on context, which is why i took the "absolute" out. i am actually beginning to wonder if it's possible to write this article without a great deal of synth.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is that the namespaces used in programming languages are simply a special case of hierarchical structures, and not the other way around as the article implies now. But I can't find a cite for that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - i think that that's true, which is why i changed the wikilink for hierarchical structure to point at inheritance, which is the closest thing i could find that would make the context clear. i'm truly at a loss regarding what to do with this article at this point.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2011 (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.