Talk:object-oriented language
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
I'm calling SoP here. The key concept is "object-oriented", which has its own entry. This isn't enough of a set phrase to be unbreakable: we can have an "object-oriented programming language", or an "object-oriented formal language", or an "object-oriented dynamic language"; one can also use it in predicative position, i.e. "Java is object-oriented". Looking at this entry's "hyponyms" section further suggests that the creator was being a bit over-enthusiastic on his topic. Equinox ◑ 04:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- The existence, even prominence, of OOL as a common abbreviation supports inclusion. I doubt that OOPL, OOFL, and OODL are nearly as common. That object-oriented exists is not a reason for deletion. DCDuring TALK 08:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- How is that different from the "we have LOL so we should have laugh out loud"? Equinox ◑ 09:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is evidence, not sufficient by itself. DCDuring TALK 10:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Initialisms are a matter of convenience, nothing to do with being lexically significant. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not according to Pawley , who does not, however, view it as sufficient evidence in itself. (A summary, not prepared by me is available here.) DCDuring TALK 18:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- That summary doesn't say anything about these being words or idioms. Linguists study phrases so there's no reason a linguistic couldn't look at big, red balloon. Doesn't mean we should have entry for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not according to Pawley , who does not, however, view it as sufficient evidence in itself. (A summary, not prepared by me is available here.) DCDuring TALK 18:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Initialisms are a matter of convenience, nothing to do with being lexically significant. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is evidence, not sufficient by itself. DCDuring TALK 10:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- How is that different from the "we have LOL so we should have laugh out loud"? Equinox ◑ 09:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. --WikiTiki89 17:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. — hippietrail (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- delete. - TheDaveRoss 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This one's good to go if any admins are reading. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted. --WikiTiki89 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)