Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure (programming language) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Cybercobra (talk | contribs) misdirected; correct |
|||
Line 7:
*'''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 Additionally, the previous AfD was a withdrawal (which doesn't mean that it can't be speedily re-nominated) and was withdrawn due to numerous attacks on the user over other AfDs.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 them, 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 the article, rather than simply stating they exist. [[User talk:Ravendrop|Ravendrop]] 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::I don't have access to the 2nd source; I was just going off what was claimed at the prior AfD, so that criticism is valid. Regarding the 3rd source, I believe the refereeing provides sufficient independence. Finally, I was not commenting on <s>your</s> the nom's faith or propriety, I was merely commenting on <s>your</s> the nom's diligence in observing [[WP:BEFORE]]. --[[User:Cybercobra|<b><font color="3773A5">Cyber</font></b><font color="FFB521">cobra</font>]] [[User talk:Cybercobra|(talk)]]
:::Fair enough on the second, but as I do have full access to it and can confirm that's all it says. On the third, I'm still wary because its still written by the developed. I think it can work as a an ''additional'' source, but not the ''primary'' or ''only'' source. Lastly, I didn't nominate the article, and was not attempting to criticize you directly, but more of putting it on record so that someone doesn't quickly look at the discussion and not realize that the previous AfD wasn't as cut and dry as it appears on the surface. [[User talk:Ravendrop|Ravendrop]] 08:13, 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>
| |||