Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-runtime

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. Consensus is to delete WP:TOOSOON. If there is indeed a desire to merge some of the aspects into another article, I could provide source info. Only keep arguement is non-policy based (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proto-runtime[edit]

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

Could be consolidated into runtime system, not notable stand alone. Not even mentioned in the single cited syllabus. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The second reference in the article mentions the VMS proto-runtime, but none of the three papers linked to on that page mention proto-runtime as a construct or term. There is just one paper I could find that has a paragraph on proto-runtimes: Runtime software adaptation: framework, approaches, and styles. None of these show enough notability for a stand alone article. The Run-time system article itself is in need of sources, but I agree this is probably the best place to merge. Mark viking (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From a technical standpoint, a proto-runtime is a significantly different thing than a runtime. Perhaps from a word perspective they sound similar, but from a concept perspective, they're as different as an article on atoms vs an article on atomic energy. Those both talk about atoms, but the concept of splitting atoms for energy is very different than the concept of the existence of atoms. In this case, a runtime system exists for all computer languages, but a proto-runtime is a fundamentally new concept for parallel languages that recognizes that all runtimes can be split into two pieces. One of those pieces relates to the language semantics, the other relates to the machine details. The proto-runtime is the piece that relates to machine details. A proto-runtime is provided as a separate thing, and then later one or more language portions are added, to create a runtime. A proto-runtime cannot be used on its own, but must have the language portion added. In a practical sense, this has value by simplifying the creation of a runtime. Only the logic of language constructs need be supplied. Low-level machine details are encapsulated inside the proto-runtime, which is reused across many languages, so the effort of tuning those low-level details for performance is amortized across all of the languages. Does this make sense? In the references, the thing called "Virtualized Master Slave" or VMS is the proto-runtime. It was only recognized after publication what the proper name should be. The proto-runtime concept is in use at Technishe Universitate Berlin, at INRIA in Paris, France, at Unister in Leipzig, at Arizona State University, and is part of a collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Edinburgh University in Scotland, and Passau University in Germany for exascale computing. Many more references will be forthcoming that put the proto-runtime concept into use, and a soon to be submitted paper will put the term "proto-runtime" into publication. Perhaps a revision, which includes the above explanation of the difference, would be of value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhalle (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I left a note on User_talk:Seanhalle also, All the above may very well be true, but you need editorial references to establish it. A vague passing mention in one paper is not a significant discussion of the subject. I suggest you gather some references (non original research) and try to add this to Run-time system. The pending papers you mention will need to have been peer reviewed first. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON--MJH (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Seanhalle for the clear explanation of the proto-runtime concept. It does sound like a promising approach to developing runtime systems across languages and systems. What is at issue here is the Wikipedia idea of notability. An article needs (1) multiple reliable sources (in this case, probably peer-reviewed papers), so article content can be verified, and (2) reliable independent secondary sources (reviews, news articles, books) to show the topic is notable in the field and to provide objective assessments of the topic. It may be that the proto-runtime concept is too new for secondary sources to appear, see WP:TOOSOON for details. It seems at present there aren't enough sources out there to show notability and to build an objective, verifiable article that can stand on its own. Mark viking (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Thanks for explaining the criteria you are using to judge notability. The need for peer-reviewed publications makes sense, to establish correctness. However, the need for secondary citations seems less valid for fundamental computer-science topics. I understand the need for secondary citations in areas that involve significant opinion and judgement. Secondary citations demonstrate value, when value is validly measured by "buzz". But in fundamental computer science topics, such as runtime systems and other foundational concepts relating to the structure of computation, what matters most seems to be independent verification of the correctness, which is supplied by peer-reviewed publication. Secondary citations are unlikely to even exist, which is a reflection of the area of knowledge. Blocking such fundamental concepts from being included in wikipedia, due to lack of secondary citations, seems like inflicting harm on wikipedia simply for the sake of following a uniform procedure, with no deviation. You're the judges, right? Read the article, to understand the concept, then decide how foundational it is.Seanhalle (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC

Hello Sean. What we require is post-publication peer review and evidence that the contribution has managed to make an impact in its scientific community. Both can be reasonably measured by the number of secondary citations. The pre-publication peer review you refer to may, depending on the journal or conference, not even guarantee complete correctness (some conferences are targeted to "work-in-progress", reviewers can overlook mistakes in proofs, ...) Any foundational work that has managed to make an impact will (almost by definition) have a large number of secondary citations. —Ruud 13:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prune and merge. Delete would be acceptable. Seanhalle's reasons for his "keep" vote are contrary to Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources mentioning this (WP:TOOSOON). —Ruud 13:19, 15 December 2012 (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.