Talk:no coupling

RFD discussion: August–September 2017
"(computing) the case when two modules are not coupled at all". Well that's just... no coupling. Like a recipe in cooking might have "no cheese". Equinox ◑ 20:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * uncoupled ? W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be about Coupling_(computer_programming). W3ird N3rd (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm a programmer in real life. This really doesn't strike me as a phrase that belongs in a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 21:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I sometimes feel the same way about some words I encounter here in my mother tongue, but when I look them up it turns out they do exist. If "no coupling" as stated in that list is used as a term (and can't just be substituted for "uncoupled") it could be valid. (I don't know if it actually is) W3ird N3rd (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Knowing the editor who created the entry, I would say they don't know if it actually is, either: they are simply unable to recognize a sum-of-parts phrase when they see it. Anything they encounter in their line of work (programming) that doesn't get out of the way fast enough gets made into an entry- they have over 900 deleted edits, of which at least a couple hundred are creations of new entries that have since been deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also a programmer IRL, I have never come across this. It doesn't make much sense to me. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; no keeping. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 04:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)