Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure (programming language) (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Cybercobra (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Keep |
||
Line 38:
*'''KEEP''' Based on the reasons I gave only a week or two ago. Pure is a language which has a number of developers, an active mailing list, peer reviewed articles describing it. The are distributions for many Linux systems - none to my knowledge produced by the main developer, but others consider the language sufficiently important. Can anyone point out one possible benefit of removing the article? Would Wikipedia be better without this article? Of course not. I'm not a user of the language, but realise it is an important language. Any idiot can hook up lex and yacc and make their own language, but Pure is well thought out. [[User:Drkirkby|Drkirkby]] ([[User talk:Drkirkby|talk]]) 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
**No one's arguing it's not useful or important. But without sources to show this, it doesn't matter.--[[User: Yaksar|Yaksar]] [[User talk: Yaksar|(let's chat)]] 00:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' for the same reasons as above. I quote my response to Christopher Monsanto's nomination a few weeks ago: "Wikipedia has been, as far as I can tell, the only uniform and complete source of up-to-date information on functional programming languages. With the deletion of popular, interesting languages like Nemerle and Pure, it becomes immediately useless because it is no longer comprehensive. While I agree that old languages with low notability and no users should be cleaned out, a much more conservative attitude should be taken toward languages with a considerable, active user and/or developer bases. Moreover, languages that are not particularly popular or referenced highly, but that serve as token examples of a concept should be kept around for conceptual completeness. You have argued elsewhere that in this case, the concept itself should be given its own article. I think that in the case of programming languages, the concept, which may just be a mere combination of certain features, does not always warrant such an article. Again, if such languages are removed, then Wikipedia is no longer a comprehensive source of information on the topic and we must look elsewhere. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there is no "elsewhere", so now we are without such a resource and those seeking a comprehensive overview of functional programming languages will be lost in the dark. Morgan Sutherland (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)" [[Special:Contributions/67.204.35.84|67.204.35.84]] ([[User talk:67.204.35.84|talk]]) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
| |||