Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formula One (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Fix Linter errors. |
|||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 7 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 [[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 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'''. [[User:Martijn Hoekstra|Martijn Hoekstra]] ([[User talk:Martijn Hoekstra|talk]]) 11:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
===[[Formula One (programming language)]]===
:{{la|Formula One (programming language)}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formula One (programming language)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 9#{{anchorencode:Formula One (programming language)}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
Line 6 ⟶ 12:
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by [[WP:GNG]]. I looked through the Google results, including Google books and Google scholar, and found nothing. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:*'''Delete''' Sad that this has been around since 1992 and currently does not have any [[WP:N|Notability]]. [[User:Phearson|Phearson]] ([[User talk:Phearson|talk]]) 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)<!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)<!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small>
*'''Delete''' <s>'''Redirect''' to [[Constraint logic programming]] because</s> the language's website says the syntax is based on Trilogy, and Trilogy is mentioned in an article in BYTE called "Constraint logic programming" (Feb 1995). I can't find any evidence of notability for F1, even on its own website. --[[User:Northernhenge|Northernhenge]] ([[User talk:Northernhenge|talk]]) 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
**Per [[WP:R#PLA]] we should not redirect to an article unless the redirected term is mentioned on the target article in a prominent way. That is not the case now, and merging the content to there may give this [[WP:UNDUE]] weight – no other constraint logic PLs are mentioned there. In spite of the positive review in ''BYTE'' we also have no article on Trilogy (I haven't read the ''BYTE'' review, but I assume this is about the language and system developed by Paul J. Voda). --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 22:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
**Yes, I should have re-read [[WP:R#PLA]]. Changed to '''delete'''. --[[User:Northernhenge|Northernhenge]] ([[User talk:Northernhenge|talk]]) 09:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
** It's a long time since I wrote any Trilogy, but this doesn't look much like its syntax. F1 looks like a far more practical approach to a similar problem. So we shouldn't redirect to Trilogy.
:: However that's not what was suggested - a merge to [[Constraint logic programming]] seems entirely appropriate. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 11:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
* <s> '''Merge'''</s>(see below) (although I'd prefer to '''keep''' it) No, I can't source it immediately. Like msnicki's other AfD for [[Qi (programming language)]], these are articles that illustrate why language designers need to choose [[googlewhack]]s for their names, if they're to survive on WP. This is a good article and is illustrative of the general field of [[Constraint logic programming]]. Accordingly if we aren't going to keep it for reasons of demonstrated notability, we should at least improve the encyclopedia by merging this useful topic explanation into our general article. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 11:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
**I can agree with that provided that you commit to (1) ensuring that the merge actually happens, while (2) including similar attention to other multi-paradigm languages that combine CP and LP, such as [[Alma-0]], [[ECLiPSe]], [[B-Prolog]], [[CHIP (programming language)|CHIP]], [[CLP(R)]], [[Oz (programming language)|Oz]], and [[SWI-Prolog]] (and in fact, to a certain extent, most current [[Prolog]] systems), so as to avoid giving undue weight to one, perhaps undeservedly, not very notable language. --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 13:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
* '''snow keep''' Tagged for AfD in under a day of creation - this simply fails [[WP:BITE]]. I'm sure that msnicki will be happy to watch the development of this brand new article, that's if we haven't driven off yet another new wiki editor. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
::Neither [[WP:SNOW]] nor [[WP:BITE]] seems to support you. With 3 of us !voting to delete and only you in favor of keep, it fails [[WP:SNOW]]. And [[WP:BITE]] says nothing about keeping new articles just because they were written by new editors, though I concede there's some discussion of this at [[WP:NPP#Be nice to the newbies|New page patrol]], but this is mostly in the context of speedy deletions, especially of pages lacking context or content. This is an AfD. It doesn't matter who wrote the article or why they did it. Content doesn't matter because that can always be fixed. All that matters here is whether the topic notable. If the sources exist, even if they're not yet cited, it's notable and we keep it. In this case, I don't think the sources exist. But you could prove me wrong with a citation and if you do, I will change my position, as I do routinely when new information is presented. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' Bite, or no bite, it is a very obscure language probably with 17 users worldwide. Not worth a page. [[User:History2007|History2007]] ([[User talk:History2007|talk]]) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (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>
| |||