Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 5:
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''delete'''. The main argument for keeping this article appears to be "someone has nominated a lot of articles for deletion", which as far as I am aware is not a valid reason for keeping ''this'' article. The sources provided have been refuted by the 'delete's as being authored by the creator of the language, and so not independent. The ones which are not written by him are disputed as useable as they are not about Y but about peephole optimisation. However, I would like to commend [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] for finding the sources, as I feel that this is more effective in argument than just saying "someone shouldn't nominate lots of articles for deletion', especially when at least one of those people used the precise-same-wording in their opposes for all of them! '''''[[User:Phantomsteve|<
===[[Y (programming language)]]===
Line 11:
:({{Find sources|Y (programming language)}})
This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. The one source I could find was the author's original publication on the language in '81, which according to the [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=954278 ACM digital library] has 10 citations. For a paper from 30 years ago, 10 citations is an awfully low number, so I don't think one could use an academic argument for this source establishing notability. Regardless, one source doesn't count as multiple instances of independent coverage. [[User:Christopher Monsanto|Christopher Monsanto]] ([[User talk:Christopher Monsanto|talk]]) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Cybercobra|<b
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Cybercobra|<b
'''Keep''' because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. [[User:Ubernostrum|Ubernostrum]] ([[User talk:Ubernostrum|talk]]) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 52:
:*Your comment is not very helpful. Could you please address the reasons for deletion instead of complaining about deletion sprees? --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:*Also note that Ubernostrum simply copy/pasted the same comment in all the nominations of programming languages that were made by monsanto. Throwaway85 has at least attempted to provide sources. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||