Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Throwaway85 (talk | contribs) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <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 top
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|<span style="color:#307D7E;">Phantom</span><span style="color:#55CAFA;">Steve</span>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]]|[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<span style="color:#000080;">contribs</span>]]\ 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
===[[Y (programming language)]]===
:{{la|Y (programming language)}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (programming language)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 12#{{anchorencode:Y (programming language)}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
:({{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 27 ⟶ 33:
::Are you sure that's an independent source and not written by the creator of the language? Also the other source used in the article is just a listing and uses this paper you've linked to as its source. So that's really only one source as a directory listing isn't generally considered a good source. [[User:SQGibbon|SQGibbon]] ([[User talk:SQGibbon|talk]]) 07:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:::The paper may (or may not) have been written by the creator of the language, but it's been published by the ACM (the preeminent organization in the field) in a peer-reviewed journal. It is thus an independent source. You are correct that the source listed is basically a very limited and poor reference to the paper I listed, so I'll attempt to round up a few more. The ACM paper alone is sufficient to write a detailed and descriptive article; regardless, I'll endeavour to find more sources to strengthen its case for inclusion. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: The paper ''is'' written by the creator of the language, which means it cannot be used to prove the existance of reliable ''secondary'' sources (per the [[WP:GNG|GNG]]). --[[User:Mukkakukaku|<
::::: Sure it can. You click the google scholar link at the top, click [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=954278 the first link], and click the "cited by" tab. Boom: tons of secondary sources. Rather than assume secondary sources don't exist and base your vote on that assumption, why not simply check first? [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 22:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Secondary sources:''' [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/10000/1783/p505-davidson.pdf?key1=1783&key2=0952797921&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=142.104.124.249&CFID=10338695&CFTOKEN=87309019 object optimization in Y], [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/510000/502885/p111-davidson.pdf?key1=502885&key2=2872797921&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=142.104.124.249&CFID=10338695&CFTOKEN=87309019 peephole optimization in Y], [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/20000/13334/p234-davidson.pdf?key1=13334&key2=2503797921&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=142.104.124.249&CFID=10338695&CFTOKEN=87309019 more peephole optimiztion in Y], [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/40000/36184/p60-davidson.pdf?key1=36184&key2=4143797921&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=142.104.124.249&CFID=10338695&CFTOKEN=87309019 analysis of instruction set complexity and performance in Y]... the list goes on. It would be nice if those claiming that no secondary sources exist made at least a nominal effort to ascertain the truth of that statement before loudly declaring it to be so. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. The source listed immediately previous is written by the creator of the language, which makes it a primary source. The language still fails the general notability guidelines which call for reliable ''secondary'' sources. --[[User:Mukkakukaku|<
*'''Delete''', no coverage by sources that are independent of the subject? --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 15:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
**I just listed 4 of them directly above you, and there's plenty more on google scholar.
***All those four sources are authored by the author of the software, they are not independent. And they are all proceeding papers, not papers in journals. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' So far, the only argument for deletion seems to be that there are a lack of secondary sources. I believe I've shown that not to be true. Between the original paper describing Y and the 20 or so citations thereof, using Y for a variety of optimization studies, there's plenty of material available to write a good article on Y. Most of the delete votes, at their heart, seem to be motivated by the fact that Y is no longer in widespread use in academia. The feeling seems to be that, as a "dead" language, it isn't notable. That's simply not what [[WP:N|notability]] means on Wikipedia. We have sources, we can write a good article, so we should do so. To the closing admin, unless one of the people proposing deletion can come up with an argument that doesn't rest upon the lack of sources, their arguments should be discarded as being [[Sound argument|unsound]] [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::A couple more sources: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TYK-48V1XHX-98-1&_cdi=5621&_user=1007916&_pii=0096055186900044&_origin=search&_coverDate=12/31/1986&_sk=999889997&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkWb&md5=f02e980ab0ec8f52866a19ef4c8aa2fc&ie=/sdarticle.pdf a few mentions here], [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/590000/582167/p128-davidson.pdf?key1=582167&key2=9245608921&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=142.104.101.236&CFID=9350626&CFTOKEN=69953373 here (might be the same as a paper I posted earlier, looks familiar)], [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V0F-45DHJ85-5N-1&_cdi=5645&_user=1007916&_pii=0020019080900435&_origin=search&_coverDate=12/12/1980&_sk=999889995&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkzV&md5=cbbbf981e4b7001621a6db092516e3de&ie=/sdarticle.pdf here (again, might be a repeat, hard to keep track)].
:::These other papers you list here not authored by him, but they seem to be about peephole optimization. This would warrant at most its inclusion in [[Peephole optimization]]. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::::The papers themselves mention the use of Y, if not particular aspects of the programming language. The spec is enough to describe syntax and semantics, as well as defining features of the language, as it is ''the'' definitive source on those aspects. The papers mentioning the use of the language in various types of optimization research are sufficient to write authoritatively on its uses. While, in general, we don't rely on primary sources for an overview of the subject, the spec is more than sufficient for this purpose, as it ''defines'' particular noteworthy aspects of the language. In the same way, the writings of a philosopher are themselves sufficient to describe a particular theory, while references to that theory are necessary to determine if it is noteworthy. I believe the secondary sources I have found, as well as the others out there, are sufficient to establish Y as notable, without needing to be relied upon to describe the language itself. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - Per Ubernostrum very wise words.--[[User:BabbaQ|BabbaQ]] ([[User talk:BabbaQ|talk]]) 14:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
:*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>
| |||