Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Throwaway85 (talk | contribs) m →Y (programming language): fix markup |
Enric Naval (talk | contribs) →Y (programming language): independient sources and sources that are actually about something else |
||
Line 36:
**I just listed 4 of them directly above you, and there's plenty more on google scholar.
***All those four sources are authored by the author of the software, they are not independent. And they are all proceeding papers, not papers in journals. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' So far, the only argument for deletion seems to be that there are a lack of secondary sources. I believe I've shown that not to be true. Between the original paper describing Y and the 20 or so citations thereof, using Y for a variety of optimization studies, there's plenty of material available to write a good article on Y. Most of the delete votes, at their heart, seem to be motivated by the fact that Y is no longer in widespread use in academia. The feeling seems to be that, as a "dead" language, it isn't notable. That's simply not what [[WP:N|notability]] means on Wikipedia. We have sources, we can write a good article, so we should do so. To the closing admin, unless one of the people proposing deletion can come up with an argument that doesn't rest upon the lack of sources, their arguments should be discarded as being [[Sound argument|unsound]] [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
::A couple more sources: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TYK-48V1XHX-98-1&_cdi=5621&_user=1007916&_pii=0096055186900044&_origin=search&_coverDate=12/31/1986&_sk=999889997&view=c&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkWb&md5=f02e980ab0ec8f52866a19ef4c8aa2fc&ie=/sdarticle.pdf a few mentions here], [http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/590000/582167/p128-davidson.pdf?key1=582167&key2=9245608921&coll=DL&dl=ACM&ip=142.104.101.236&CFID=9350626&CFTOKEN=69953373 here (might be the same as a paper I posted earlier, looks familiar)], [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V0F-45DHJ85-5N-1&_cdi=5645&_user=1007916&_pii=0020019080900435&_origin=search&_coverDate=12/12/1980&_sk=999889995&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkzV&md5=cbbbf981e4b7001621a6db092516e3de&ie=/sdarticle.pdf here (again, might be a repeat, hard to keep track)].
:::These other papers you list here not authored by him, but they seem to be about peephole optimization. This would warrant at most its inclusion in [[Peephole optimization]]. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
| |||