Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green (programming language)

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found zero sources for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found the primary source for this, Guimarães, José de Oliveira (2006). "The Green language". Computer Languages, Systems & Structures. 32 (4): 203–215. doi:10.1016/j.cl.2005.07.001., but it has only 16 citations [1] so far in Google scholar, and most of them are self-citations; CiteSeerX only found two citations, both self- [2]; 0 citations in ACM's digital library [3]. The wiki page was written by the paper/language's author, User talk:Josedeoliveiraguimaraes. Wasn't able to find any other coverage. Pcap ping 09:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Multiple publications about this language in reliable peer-reviewed academic journals. I see no requirement in WP:N that those publications are themselves cited in other publications. As the journals are peer reviewed, the publications cannot be considered as non-independent of the authors of the language. Also, speaking as a computer scientist, its type system sounds somewhat interesting, and it is the kind of thing we should probably keep a basic article on just as an example of variations on the normal way of doing things. JulesH (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2010 (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.