Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure (programming language) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Cybercobra (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
→Pure (programming language): d and c |
||
Line 6:
PROD contested with no reason given. No outside verifiable significant sources that establish notability for inclusion. [[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html German IT magazine article], [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1863538 ACM journal article] that apparently talks about it, [http://lac.linuxaudio.org/2009/cdm/Saturday/19_Graef/19.pdf refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings]. This more than meets the GNG minimum. Read the prior AfD(s) beforehand next time. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b><font color="3773A5">Cyber</font></b><font color="FFB521">cobra</font>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' The sources that you have provided are far from convincing. Granted, I can't read the first one, but the only mention of Pure in the entire article in the second one is: "Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler," which makes it hardly suitable. Finally, the third is written by the developer of the language and is hardly independent. Additionally, the previous AfD was a withdrawal (which doesn't mean that it can't be speedily re-nominated) and was withdrawn due to numerous attacks on the user over other AfDs. This AfD is no way a bad faith nomination; a little [[WP:AGF]] is needed. Finally, it is still the imperative of the writers of articles to source them with reliable sources, not for readers of the articles to go out and look for, and especially when the language has such a common word for a name, those with limited technical knowledge can easily be swamped looking for proper sources. The best way to defend this article would be to put [[WP:RS]] sources into, rather than simply stating they exist. [[User talk:Ravendrop|Ravendrop]] 07:55, 28 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 color="3773A5">Cyber</font></b><font color="FFB521">cobra</font>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]] 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)</small>
*'''Delete''' I see no independent, in-depth treatment of this language from [[WP:RS]]. Would be willing to change my vote if some is found. [[User talk:Ravendrop|Ravendrop]] 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
| |||