Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureScript (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. I have discarded the non-policy based spa votes, which leaves us a preponderance of established editors putting forward policy based grounds (poor sourcing) for deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PureScript (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. —cnzx 23:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The search links are skewed: with just "PureScript" they give much more hits and few of them refer to unrelated topic, if any.

For programming languages, the following is a significant channel of coverage, not NYT nor mainstream news portals (by the time a language reaches them, it's usually old, stale and technologically obsolete): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/purescript

Also, scientific papers about a cutting edge programming language tend to be in preparation or on the level of BSc or MSc theses, as opposed to established programming languages, where there is a lot of misleading hits, because then the language is used as a basis for extensions, experiments, or just as a minor tool, so the papers are not really about such a language.

I propose to wait and see, for otherwise, we risk a deletion/creation loop, with more and more arguments against deletion each time, but with less and less people willing to waste time creating the ephemeral article, even once the topic is very notable at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the search is skewed. Try searching with "PureScript" + programming (scholar, books). I don't work on PureScript, but I do hear its name often enough. For sources independent of the subject, see /r/purescript links. The first that came up was 'Purescript-web3 presentation by Martin Allen, Senior Blockchain Developer at FOAM' likely based on the ny-purescript meetup. If people are meeting up to talk about the language, isn't it notable enough? For a more academic sounding source, see 'Reactive Programming in the Browser with Scala.js and PureScript'. As far as I can tell, none of these people are directly affiliated with the PureScript project. Another reason one might consider it a relevant programming language is that it's mentioned as a AltJS language in job descriptions like this one. --Eed3si9n (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Most definitely keep. I didn't really think about a Wikipedia page for PureScript until I saw a tweet about it being deleted. Admittedly it's a relatively new language but already has a community of a few thousand interested programmers. PureScript is basically Haskell with some cruft removed and optimised for compilation to JavaScript. There is significant on-going community effort porting Haskell libraries, creating frameworks and publishing documentation. --Simgard (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Simgard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep PureScript is a language that is gaining more and more interest in the functional programming and the Javascript / Node.js communities. I'm no longer a professional programmer, and while I'm currently learning the language I'm not affiliated with the project. It is comparable to the Elm language, although it probably does not yet have Elm's popularity. It's similarity to Haskell and its support for popular platforms such as Node.js give it relevance from my perspective. We're beginning to see university theses on PureScript, e.g. https://is.muni.cz/th/374321/fi_m/?lang=en#. I think this is the first time I ever edited such a page on Wikipedia, so please let me know if I inadvertently violated any conventions. Sonineties (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Sonineties (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: PureScript is currently one of the most advanced, yet still practical languages, targeting the JavaScript platform. It is the natural step up for Elm programmers in need of more expressive power. While PureScript is quite similar to Haskell, it has novel features like row type ploymorphism, and a much more systematic (in a mathematical sense) standard library, based on category theory. Not having a Wikipedia page on PureScript would in my opinion be very unfortunate. I do agree that the page needs to be much improved on, and that the active, growing and passionate PS community needs to step up. copointless (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2017 (CET) — copointless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

keep Discussion in the scholarly literature seems to establish notability. LiberalArtist (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~

When this language added to the article (Timeline of programming languages), I deleted it at first because no article about the language!
Later I discovered that it deserve it's article (IMHO) using Wikipedia Guidelines.
So I started the language article, I don't know anything about the language, The team behind it, Never used it, I'm just writing for sharing the knowledge using the Internet resources.
(1) open source language with over 100 contributors and 4000 stars (Github)
https://github.com/purescript/purescript https://github.com/purescript/purescript/graphs/contributors
How many programmers in the world?
How many languages are used by very large number of developers?
Thousands of users for new programming languages (developed during the last 10 years) are enough!
(2) Used by many open source projects
https://github.com/trending/purescript
(3) Selected by GitHub team in (A list of programming languages that are actively developed on GitHub)
https://github.com/collections/programming-languages
(4) Provided as Haskell package too, Over 50,000 downloads from this website only
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/purescript
(5) Reference (Primary Resources): https://leanpub.com/purescript/
(6) Secondary Resources exists too

https://speakerdeck.com/michaelficarra/getting-started-with-purescript

(7) The article is a (Stub), Just keep it so new resources can be added along the time.

~~Magedsaud53 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)~~ struck comment by sock —cnzx (talk • contribs)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So let me get this straight -- three separate sub-50 edit accounts popped out of nowhere and all decided to !vote keep? Even if that weren't an issue, Reddit, Indeed, Stackoverflow, Hackage, Meetup, and Github are all not independent sources, which are needed to pass the GNG. They are all user created content. —cnzx 03:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~This collection is done by (GitHub Company Team - Not user content) : https://github.com/collections/programming-languages Magedsaud53 (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)~~ struck comment by sock —cnzx (talk • contribs)[reply]

Regardless, that doesn't make it a WP:SECONDARY source. The language's presence in what appears to be an autogenerated list on Github also doesn't make it notable. —cnzx 04:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to list what, if anything, from above you do consider to be relevant. For example, there seem to be relevant citations in scholar, and although Reddit is not secondary, it links to several sources which might indicate notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elfin hamper (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) — Elfin hamper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete The article fails GNG as the references are either primary sourced or blogs. Doing a google on Purescript did not bring about any notable references. Even though the language has a passing mention in Sitepoint which is not a reputable reference nothing suggests that this is notable. Unless the language gets significant coverage in tech articles this is WP:TOOSOON. Hagennos (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~How many references are required for the topic to be notable? Magedsaud53 (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)~~ struck comment by sock —cnzx (talk • contribs)[reply]

Keep meets GNG with RS Chetsford (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't seen a single mention by name, let alone a detailed discusssion, in a single reliable source, let alone a number of them. The above arguments for keeping the article show evidence that the language is reasonably popular, but popularity isn't the same thing as nontrivial coverage in several reliable sources, which Wikipedia requires. —Kodiologist (t) 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails general notability guideline, as there is currently no significant coverage in reliable sources. Ralbegen (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2017 (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.