Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSHDL

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PSHDL[edit]

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

The topic of this article, a hardware description language (HDL) called Plain & Simple Hardware Description Language (PSHDL), fails WP:GNG. It is an educational/hobbyist HDL with no meaningful acceptance. As far as I am able to determine, it is not supported by common, real-world, third-party electronic design automation (EDA) software; and there is no evidence that it has much use in tertiary-level education, academic and industrial research, or industry.

A search for this HDL at the IEEE Xplore Digital Library returns one paper ("A web based tool for teaching hardware design based on the plain simple hardware description language"), which appears to be written by the creator of this HDL, or by a person closely associated with the effort behind this HDL. It was presented at the Global Engineering Education Conference, which suggests the impact of this HDL is negligible since the premier conference for HDLs is the Design Automation Conference. The paper itself has not been cited by any other works.

A Google Scholar search returned no results for the full-name and 14 results for "PSHDL", all of which were false-positives. A Google Books and News search returned no results for either name. A Google Web search returned no results in the first 100 results that could be deemed to be independent and reliable secondary or tertiary sources (which are required to establish notability per WP:GNG). AZ1199 (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no evidence of notability through independent reliable sources, just the single primary source. Kudos go to the nom for a careful description of their investigation into the topic and its notability. --Mark viking (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete SHDL is significant and notable. Hobbyist subsets of it aren't, unless they attract significant volumes of users and some external coverage. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2016 (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.