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

Revision as of 01:04, 22 February 2011

Revision as of 06:45, 10 October 2021

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)