Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key-objects Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Key-objects

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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Key-objects

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't possibly establish something that doesn't exist, like in this case. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds legit, merge with Structured Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)... if that is even notable itself. Both articles, started by the same editor, seems to be purely promotional of this patented programming paradigm. Could even probably bundle delete. (t/c) 11:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—article is here to prop up Structured Search, which isn't notable either. Both terms are sufficiently generic that I would expect to find them used across dozens of different computing disciplines, but there's no particular use that has garnered sufficient coverage in WP:RS to justify an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:55, 16 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.