Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object cesspool

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Object pool (done by Tenbaset, thanks). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object_cesspool

Appears to be a nelogism coined by the author. Could be merged into Object pool by the same author. Tenbaset 01:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge → object pool, per nom. --Mysidia (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge → object pool, per nom. Note that I've already written a poor addition to object pool which covers object cesspools. Even if this article stays, object pool needs to link back to it, and describe why it's interesting. --195.173.15.12 15:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge → object pool - Some things are better in other articles instead of on their own. This is one of those things. Qaz ^(talk) 04:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think anyone trying to merge the content into Object pool should not use the phrase "Object cesspool" because it is a neologism (Please see Talk:Object cesspool for my rationale.) and that's why I nominated it for VFD. I've also done such a (rough) merge Tenbaset 08:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: see Talk:Anti-pattern#Object_cesspool -- it appears that this article may have been created essentially by original research - citing sources would have been preferable, and the word object cesspool seems to be a neologism/protologism, unknown to major writings on the subject of patterns/anti-patterns, at least.. --Mysidia (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism.--Mpeisenbr 15:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of neologism. Rd232 18:46, 18 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.