Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:02, 22 February 2011

Latest revision as of 05:24, 11 February 2023

(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users 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:Throwaway 85Throwaway85|Throwaway 85Throwaway85]] 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#307D7E;">Phantom</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#55CAFA;">Steve</fontspan>]]'''''/[[User talk:Phantomsteve|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#008000;">talk</fontspan>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Phantomsteve|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#000080;">contribs</fontspan>]]\ 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

===[[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><font colorstyle="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</font></b><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FFB521;">cobra</fontspan>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)</small>

*<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><font colorstyle="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</font></b><fontspan colorstyle="color:#FFB521;">cobra</fontspan>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)</small>

'''Keep''' because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. [[User:Ubernostrum|Ubernostrum]] ([[User talk:Ubernostrum|talk]]) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Line 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006600;">[[User:Mukkakukaku|'''M'''û'''ĸĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û'''ĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û]]</fontspan>]] _{<small>([[User talk: Mukkakukaku|blah?]])</small>} 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::::: 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#006600;">[[User:Mukkakukaku|'''M'''û'''ĸĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û'''ĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û]]</fontspan>]] _{<small>([[User talk: Mukkakukaku|blah?]])</small>} 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

*'''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)

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>