Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shen (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Shen (programming language): tagging spa |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate 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 [[Help:Using talk pages|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 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'''. There are several !votes by SPA editors. While being a SPA does not necessarily mean that a !vote will be ignored, in this case, none of the SPA !votes appears to be policy based. None of the "keep" !votes come up with a reliable source covering the subject in-depth, all seem to be basically [[WP:ILIKEIT]]. In contrast, the "delete" !votes are policy-based and hence carry the day. [[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 13:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
===[[Shen (programming language)]]===
{{notavote|https://groups.google.com/d/msg/qilang/BH711MXPBjY/7n-EWb4jBa0J}}
Line 18 ⟶ 25:
:::(Note that the following is a wild guess:) I think I know why, besides the licensing, Qi and Shen have been entirely uninfluential, thereby failing to achieve Wikipedia notability: there's little that's qualitatively unique about them except for implementation details. They are explicitly intended to be modern functional languages, adding a number of features where Lisp hasn't kept up in any base version of the language. And Shen's KL is akin to the [[SECD machine]]. [[User:Hga|Hga]] ([[User talk:Hga|talk]]) 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Northamerica1000|N<
*'''Comment.''' Here's the problem I have with the argument that the work represents "an important step in language development". No one's argued anyone's using Qi or Shen and the author, Mark Tarver, is an academic, so I'm inclined to test the claim of importance in the way we often do in academia, which is to ask how often the work has been cited. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3A%22mark+tarver%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48 Here's] a Google scholar search on Tarver's papers. His paper on Qi has received only 3 citations and his paper on Shen has received only 2. Drilling down, three of those combined 5 citations are by Tarver himself, leaving these papers with ''only one citation each'' by anyone other than the author. Within the STEM disciplines, a significant paper is generally understood to be one that receives over 1000 citations. Qi and Shen are not only not important, almost no one's even noticed they exist. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 20:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
Line 45 ⟶ 52:
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF4F00;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Nakon|<
▲<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Nakon|<font color="#C50">'''Nakon'''</font>]] 05:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Shen (programming language)]]</div>
:I should introduce myself; I am Dr Willi Riha, formerly lecturer in comparative programming languages at the university of Leeds.
Line 68 ⟶ 73:
::Dr. Riha, as an academic, surely you understand what it means to publish. It doesn't mean posting on YouTube. It usually means you got your paper published in some kind of reviewed publication. Our standards aren't even that high. All we ask is that you got published in a source with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. If you or anyone else is indeed doing some interesting work with Shen, surely some of you must have an incentive to publish something on the topic. Once you do, that will contribute to the notability of Shen in a way we can consider. When do you think that might happen? In the meantime, you are welcome to [[WP:USERFY]] the page. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
:::With respect, I think you are missing the point. The question of the academic originality/academic notability of Shen is not an issue to be decided in Wikipedia. My intercession was made to answer your statement 'No one's argued anyone's using Qi or Shen'. Well that has been addressed. So that should dispose of that objection. The question of notability is already shown by the size of the news group and, as Smita below has shown and I repeat the quote that he supplied
:::"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."
:::The only question remaining is whether the material in the entry is accurate and substantiated. If you think that is the case, then you need to withdraw your bid for deletion. If not, you need to indicate what parts of the entry are not substantiated and the Shen group will either withdraw them or find the necessary citations - Willi. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Williriha|Williriha]] ([[User talk:Williriha|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Williriha|contribs]]) 16:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Unfortunately, you're wrong. We do not decide whether to keep an article based on whether it's accurate and substantiated. We decide based on whether there are independent secondary sources in reliable publications that discuss the topic. It appears no such sources exist. You can fix this. Go get something published in ANY reliable publication -- it could be [[TV Guide]] for all anyone cares -- and you can have your article. But we do not keep articles where the only sources are primary or self-published. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
* '''keep''' In the Lisp family of languages, Shen stands out in at least two respects: (1) Its type system, which is closer to a general theorem prover than to a traditional type system, and (2) its implementation by compilation to a minimalist subset of itself. Shen is actively developed, well documented in [http://www.shenlanguage.org/tbos.html The Book of Shen], and it has a small but active user base organized in a mailing list. Not being a Wikipedia expert, I cannot say if this suffices for notability, but as a Wikipedia user I would definitely expect Wikipedia to have an entry on Shen. <small>— [[User:82.66.102.10|82.66.102.10]] ([[User talk:82.66.102.10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.66.102.10|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small> — <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:82.66.102.10|82.66.102.10]] ([[User talk:82.66.102.10|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/82.66.102.10|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small> <small>The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at 08:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
Line 106 ⟶ 119:
::No, sorry, they do not. Those all appear to be [[WP:Self-published sources]]. Anybody can claim to be an expert and publish anything on his own. This is why we ask for [[WP:Reliable sources]], defined as those with reputations for fact-checking and editorial control, and do not accept blogs, YouTube videos and so on. But any reliable source will do. It could be a hobbyist magazine as long it's reliable and you can somehow get your material published there. It doesn't have to be [[Communications of the ACM]]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: Understood, thanks. [[User:Tiodante|Tiodante]] ([[User talk:Tiodante|talk]]) 22:18, 11 March 2015 (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 [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||