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

Revision as of 17:54, 10 January 2012

Latest revision as of 03:26, 27 December 2024

(4 intermediate revisions by 4 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)]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}

:{{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 15 ⟶ 21:

:: 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)

* <strikes> '''Merge'''</strikes>(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. &nbsp;--[[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 appears the only way to claim this isfails [[WP:SNOW]] situation is if you don't know what that means. And [[WP:BITE]] says nothing about keeping new articles just because they were written by new editors., though Further,I anyoneconcede whothere's donesome newdiscussion of this at [[WP:NPP#Be nice to the newbies|New page patrol]], knowsbut wethis deleteis newmostly articlesin bythe newcontext editorsof speedy constantlydeletions, oftenespecially withinof minutespages oflacking context or creationcontent. TheThis testis an AfD. It isndoesn't whethermatter who wrote the article or thewhy editorthey isdid newit. or evenContent whetherdoesn't thematter articlebecause inthat itscan presentalways formbe isfixed. acceptable, it'sAll that matters here is whether the topic is 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>