Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spin (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 delete. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spin (programming language)

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

Programming language which lacks cites from independent reliable sources, and appears to fail the Google test for notability. The Anome (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not reliable third party sources are found. I used the keywords Spin and Chip Gracey (language's creator) and not found any notable sources. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I contest the methods used to conduct the "Google test". Using "Spin (programming language)" is an unrealistic construct. No one is going to write a book, for example, which says: "Spin (programming language) is used to program xyz". In five seconds, which includes typing and Internet latecy, I found one reliable source: David A. Scanlan, Martin A. Hebel. "Programming the eight-core propeller chip" Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Volume 23, Issue 1, October 2007. I think merge-able content in the article should be merged into Parallax Propeller and Spin be redirected, as the programming language is "coupled" to the Parallax Propeller and doesn't achieve enough notability for now. Being unfamiliar with the subject, I willing to change my recommendation if someone tells me otherwise. Rilak (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given that Rilak found some sources. i think its detailed enuf to warrant its own page too.Mission Fleg (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One academic citation is not sufficient to establish notability. Doubly so when it occurs in an obscure journal. VG ☎ 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article has as topic the language and processors produced by the same corporation, so it's not a third party source. Even worse, the journal article has zero citations. VG ☎ 20:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not sure if this helps, but theres an active online forum for propeller/spin at [1] with 20+ posts for just today and also a wiki [2] Mission Fleg (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable academic language. The only publications about it was written by people from the same research group, and appeared in an obscure journal. That journal article has yet to be cited by anyone else. Above !voters clearly did not know how to evaluate such a source. VG ☎ 20:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the articles on both the Parallax,_Inc._(company) and Parallax_Propeller have zero third-party references to establish notability. VG ☎ 22:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, I always though that the Parallax Propeller and Spin was created by Chip Gracey and his company, Parallax, a commercial company that markets a commercial product. I see no evidence that this is a academic language. The ACM claims that David A Scanlan and Martin A Hebel have only been affiliated with the Illinois State University and the Southern Illinois University respectively and not Parallax. It appears that either an assessment has been incorrectly made or there is a misunderstanding. Rilak (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One acedemic paper does not make something notable, most PhDs produce many more, but don't get their own wiki articles. Redirect if an expert knows where toYobmod (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2008 (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.