Talk:creational pattern

RFD

"A design pattern involving object creation mechanisms that are suitable to the situation" i.e. a pattern which creates things Furius (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Not any pattern, a design pattern. Keep. DAVilla 12:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep this technical term. --Sae1962 (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. I note that in addition to "creational pattern", w:Creational pattern also uses the phrases "creational design pattern", "object-creational pattern", and "class-creational pattern". And while my own instinct is to treat creational as non-predicating, b.g.c. even finds the sentence, "The Singleton and Factory patterns are creational: used to generate one or more objects." —Ruakh_TALK 04:03, 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 04:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion restored. This was archived as having failed by a non-admin; clearly it has not, as a clear consensus on the merits of the term has not been reached. bd2412 T 16:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. It’s the name of a specific type of design pattern. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 22:41, 5 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)