Talk:structural pattern

Deletion discussion
"A design pattern that eases the design by identifying a simple way to realize relationships between entities" i.e. a pattern which provides structure. Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Not any pattern, a design pattern. Keep. DAVilla 12:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that meaning ought to be stored at pattern (an extension of meaning one point one, perhaps). Because anything at all can have a design pattern behind it - w:Category:Software_design_patterns contains 83 different types of software pattern, so far. The meanings of all of them are deductable from their first component - and when one can't do so from that component's wiktionary entry, that reflects the need for a more technical definition at the entry for the first term. All of them have the same meaning in computer science regardless of whether they are a pattern or not. Furius (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this, as it is a term of a special kind of design pattern. --Sae1962 (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly not a term, but a two-word phrase. Note that structural patterns are also called structural design patterns. —Ruakh TALK 04:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, deleted as copyvio, but that's neither here nor there, since of course this discussion could conclude that the entry can be recreated without the copyvio. —Ruakh TALK 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion restored. This was archived as having failed by a non-admin; clearly it has not, as the entry was deleted for reasons unrelated to the merits of the term, and a clear consensus on the merits of the term has not been reached. bd2412 T 16:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sae1962: it’s the name of a specific class of design patterns. — Ungoliant (Falai) 02:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

closed. The entry is gone, there's no use in discussing whether it should be kept. First create the entry, then RFD - not the other way around. -- Liliana • 16:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)