Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly (programming language)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fly_(programming_language)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Fly_(programming_language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At its simplest, the wikipedia page has more information than the user's webpage. Furthermore, the only pertinent link on the entire page goes to the user's personal webserver (no URL, just an IP). This, combined with no visible work on the language itself suggests a real lack of notability. No amount of improvement to the wiki-page will suffice when there is a lack of information in existence. Gundato (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only Citation/reference for the language that isn't broken is NOT actually related to the language in the article. Moreover, The only page related to the work itself is the author's home server. Also, I'm inclined to think that the language doesn't actually exist considering I can find no reference code or compiler. There doesn't seem to be anything at all. I also feel the syntax bears a striking resemblance to cool (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_(programming_language) which is a language used to teach CS students about compilers. Given this, my guess is that the language is more or less the authors first experience creating a language and he created the wiki article to go along with that (the author did create the article if you check the history). In general, there is a complete lack of notability. snaphat (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, that's a whole lot of guesswork, all of it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.181 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny that you should mention Cool, since Cool's wikipedia entry only contains references to material produces by the language project, nothing third party. Why isn't that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.181 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you feel an article should not be on Wikipedia, either improve it, or nominate it (Believe it or not, but I did do a thorough search in an attempt to find any way to have this article be considered notable. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, there appears to be no work done on this project, only a single person on the project itself, and no references that can be used to mark this as notable). Also, there are only a finite number of editors on Wikipedia. And the number of editors are considerably smaller than the number of people who wish to make a wikipedia article for every web page they like. As such, Wiki made very concrete rules regarding notability and the like. You look at the rules to see if an article is notable, not its neighbors. Either way, please try to be civil. Gundato (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In regard to COOL: The 1996 paper published to ACM SIGPLAN Notices is referenced by 26 other scholarly works. Many of those would qualify as 3rd party references on Wikipedia. Moreover, the publication (and many others citing the particular work) are published to ACM special interest groups which are highly regarded as top of the line conferences/journals in the field. Simply because the wiki article itself is lacking references, does not make the language un-notable. Feel free to add references if you wish. snaphat (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I just removed all unrelated citations/references. They look to be an attempt to simply make the article look notable. snaphat (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the author of the language (and the wikipedia entry). I can assure you the Fly language is real enough :) It will be featured in the LLVM release notes for 3.0. The "home server" is not a home server, there's just no ___domain for it. Updated wikipedia page, so that the google code project page is linked instead. The cited papers are very much relevant, but should be external links I suppose, instead of references (?). The "striking resemblance" to Cool is no more striking than C#'s resemblance to Java. All modern OO languages share similar syntax. That said, Fly isn't even close to Cool semantically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are still generic references that don't have anything specific to do with your language. As Andy said, notability depends on 3rd party sources. To be a source, it should actually reference your work. If the LLVM release notes do mention it, that will count as one source. I am not familiar with Wiki's policies, but as it stands, zero (third party) sources is definitely not enough. I understand that you are excited to work on your own project, but if everyone with a website and a passing knowledge of Wiki's mark-up made pages for their work, Wiki would be a LOT bigger than it currently is. That is why notability is an issue. Gundato (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hence, I am advocating making them external links, since they're very much relevant. "My" project is an open source project, using a free license, just like [Pure], for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that is great. But the fact of the matter is, you still don't have any third-party sources. That is the big issue for notability, as Andy mentioned. The issue isn't that you don't have enough citations. It is that not enough people cited you. Whether or not you (or myself) agree, Wiki's policy for notability is "Is this cited by a bunch of third party sources?". That is the issue. Not "Does this cite a bunch of third party sources?". And as far as Pure goes, that probably also should be deleted (it seems to have no third party references), but I'll let a different person nominate that. Gundato (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know what notability means. The language is discussed at various mailing lists, irc, etc. And I'm happy to provide source code for the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I actually don't think you do know what Wikipedia's definition of notability is. WP:N is a good start. Discussion on mailing lists and IRC are nice, but can you actually cite them? I am sure you can understand why the honor system probably wouldn't work in this case. Furthermore, are these independent sources as in Wikipedia:Independent_sources? Or are they posts on mailing lists from the creator of the language (this includes those that are responses to the creator as well)? And the source code won't be a third-party reference by virtue of having been written by the creator of the project (I would hope). This isn't a question of whether or not work exists. This appearing to be just another unstarted project on a sourceforge/google-projects site isn't the issue here. It is the lack of notability. And again, that is Wikipedia's definition of notability. Gundato (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N entirely. LiteralKa (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete currently fails WP:RS and name makes it very hard to find references using google etc. Author appears unable or unwilling to supply independent WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not unwilling. There simply aren't any yet.
  • Delete I agree my article doesn't meet notability guidelines. There will soon be third party citations, though. Will it be possible to restore the page if it gets deleted now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you have an account and ask for it, the article can be userified, i.e. removed from the main namespace and copied to the user namespace where you can work on it. I suggest that doign this would be a good way to resolve this impass. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paper on the way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.125.220 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The above IP is the same IP as fly language's home page mentioned by the OP of the AfD (it was changed to the googlecode page a few edits ago). It is actually a range owned by a hosting company called eboundhost.com. I checked this out a few days ago after the author mentioned that the IP wasn't a residential/home server. snaphat (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability depends on 3rd party references. A citation for the authors' own paper(s). won't help the article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. snaphat (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Correct, posted from the Fly projects server (formerly fly.openwing.org - still searchable). While not the language author, I work on the project in various ways, mostly documentation. I suppose the GIT and wiki will be opened to a lot of other people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note My take as project member... there's a lot of stuff going on, and there will be citations shortly. I agree that the page can be removed, but what's the point if there soon will be citable material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.212.120 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, please encourage all users on your project to register accounts. As it stands, the simple fact that your project web-page lists a single user and all of these are IPs that are, by and large, associated with your own (and have no other edits) suggests Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. And either way, by definition they are all meatpuppets. Regardless, if you get a publication, great (I am not sure if a publication written by the creator counts for notability, I'll let someone else figure that out), but that will be a ways out. You have had approximately 2 years to achieve some degree of notability with this, and you have failed. So, as was suggested, move this to your user-space (and attempt a restore once you can achieve notability). But the article itself is a pretty clear case for deletion in its current state. Gundato (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify' to the account that created the page. The creator appears to be in agreement (see above). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not-notable. I'll doubt the paper that is on its way would pass our standards for reliable sources (i.e. having been published in a peer-review journal), but if that turns out to be the case this can be taken to WP:DRV later. Wikipedia is not a webhost, so don't userify. —Ruud 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the article creator, I absolutely don't care if it's deleted or userified as long as it's possible to reintroduce the article with notable references, once that's in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As Ruud has pointed out, Wikipedia is not a web host. The article has existed for over 2 years without any coverage in reliable sources, and quite frankly, I don't see that one published paper in the future will do the trick. I don't see that userfication as a good outcome in this instance. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As I pointed out, I don't care, as long as the article can be reintroduced with notable references. I wonder how many times it must be repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, if at some point in the future there exists multiple independent sources discussing Fly in a non-trival fashion you can request the article to be undeleted (but note the adjectives, they are important). —Ruud 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article is clearly about a DIY project. Even if the language is fully realized at some point, it still would not be noteworthy without acceptance and use by the general public. --Djohns21 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What's the point discussing this anymore? Even the article owner want the page removed - I've got assurances that the page can be reintroduced with notable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One suggestion: If you are truly okay with this being deleted, change your votes to delete to speed up the process. As long as this discussion is open, people will comment and discuss it. If there is a unanimous decision to delete (and, while you don't own anything on wiki, having the only person who is opposed to deletion change his mind will help), it will likely speed up the process. Gundato (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fly_(programming_language)&oldid=1073125957"