Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure (programming language) (2nd nomination)

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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure (programming language)[edit]

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

PROD contested with no reason given. No outside verifiable significant sources that establish notability for inclusion. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

All were nominated using the back door deletion process called PROD. It allows a single person to tag the article, and if uncontested for a few days any editor with delete privileges can delete it, without any public review outside of the obscure PROD list. Especially sneaky considering the Keep outcome at the last AFD for some of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles which have been through an AfD are ineligible for PROD-ding. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep German IT magazine article, ~~ACM journal article that apparently talks about it,~~ refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings. This ~~more than~~ meets the GNG minimum. Read the prior AfD(s) beforehand next time. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources that you have provided are far from convincing. Granted, I can't read the first one, but the only mention of Pure in the entire article in the second one is: "Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler," which makes it hardly suitable. Finally, the third is written by the developer of the language and is hardly independent. Additionally, the previous AfD was a withdrawal (which doesn't mean that it can't be speedily re-nominated) and was withdrawn due to numerous attacks on the user over other AfDs. This AfD is no way a bad faith nomination; a little WP:AGF is needed. Finally, it is still the imperative of the writers of articles to source them with reliable sources, not for readers of the articles to go out and look for them, and especially when the language has such a common word for a name, those with limited technical knowledge can easily be swamped looking for proper sources. The best way to defend this article would be to put WP:RS sources into the article, rather than simply stating they exist. Ravendrop 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the 2nd source; I was just going off what was claimed at the prior AfD, so that criticism is valid. Regarding the 3rd source, I believe the refereeing provides sufficient independence. Finally, I was not commenting on ~~your~~ the nom's faith or propriety, I was merely commenting on ~~your~~ the nom's diligence in observing WP:BEFORE. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the second, but as I do have full access to it and can confirm that's all it says. On the third, I'm still wary because its still written by the developed. I think it can work as a an additional source, but not the primary or only source. Lastly, I didn't nominate the article, and was not attempting to criticize you directly, but more of putting it on record so that someone doesn't quickly look at the discussion and not realize that the previous AfD wasn't as cut and dry as it appears on the surface. Ravendrop 08:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no independent, in-depth treatment of this language from WP:RS. Would be willing to change my vote if some is found. Weak Keep Based solely on the German article and, minimally, on the refereed proceeding. Ravendrop 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What beef do you have with the German article? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you, or someone else, verify that it is a WP:RS. Ravendrop 04:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's from iX (magazine), a magazine for IT professionals published by Heinz Heise; see also Google translation of dewiki article on iX. It's apparent from skimming that the article is entirely about Pure.--Cybercobra (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references provided above (one refereed article + two independent mentions) and by being the successor to Q (equational programming language). —Ruud 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or WP:Buro Renomination churning of recent AfD closed with ten Keep !votes, one Delete !vote, cited references, and withdrawal of the nomination by the nominator. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting harder and harder to AGF with you. It has been pointed out to you multiple times that the previous AfD closed due to outside canvassing and harassment, something widely accepted. Argue keep for actual reasons, not this one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin for the first AFD, I have to agree with Unscintillating on this one, this renomination was premature. Unlike some of the others and despite the withdrawn nomination, that one was a "clear keep". Yes some of the !votes might have been canvassed but there was enough participation from established editors that the close should have stuck for a while. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no knowledge of or interest in these rumors. I think that this nomination could have waited for three months. Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are not rumours, they are fact. And that you don't know of them doesn't mean that you can ignore them or pretend they don't exist. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Additionally, there is no policy that says that withdrawn Afds have to wait any time period before they can be re-nominated. It is perfectly acceptable to re-nominate them at any time afterwards. As of now you have not given any policy based reasons to keep this article. Ravendrop 04:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no interest. Whatever your issue is, it could have waited three months, there is no deadline at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can't AGF at this point, and just need to point out that Unscintillating is purposely playing the fool despite full knowledge of the Reddit canvassing incident.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of what this previous post might appear to be, respondent has no history of dispute with me and I can and do assume good faith going forward. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're trying to wikilawyer your way into something or what, but it's just not needed. A lack of past interaction between us has nothing to do with anything we've been discussing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know, or don't care, about the circumstances of the previous AfD you should not have mentioned it. Yaksar is correct; you are not acting in good faith. You've only brought it up because you saw in it an opportunity for deliberate bad-faith obstructionism. Reyk _YO! 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, this is respondent's previous response to me here. Suggest that respondent use "IMO" more often. Unscintillating (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And? Your point? I said, "I agree with opinions X and Y" and you replied with "snigger snigger thanks for your opinions on opinions X and Y, but what are your opinions snigger snigger" as though it wasn't blatantly obvious that I shared those opinions. I don't like being talked down to, and called you on it. It's not a big deal, and irrelevant to this discussion. Reyk _YO! 01:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Based on the reasons I gave only a week or two ago. Pure is a language which has a number of developers, an active mailing list, peer reviewed articles describing it. The are distributions for many Linux systems - none to my knowledge produced by the main developer, but others consider the language sufficiently important. Can anyone point out one possible benefit of removing the article? Would Wikipedia be better without this article? Of course not. I'm not a user of the language, but realise it is an important language. Any idiot can hook up lex and yacc and make their own language, but Pure is well thought out. Drkirkby (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one's arguing it's not useful or important. But without sources to show this, it doesn't matter.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as above. I quote my response to Christopher Monsanto's nomination a few weeks ago:

"Wikipedia has been, as far as I can tell, the only uniform and complete source of up-to-date information on functional programming languages. With the deletion of popular, interesting languages like Nemerle and Pure, it becomes immediately useless because it is no longer comprehensive. While I agree that old languages with low notability and no users should be cleaned out, a much more conservative attitude should be taken toward languages with a considerable, active user and/or developer bases. Moreover, languages that are not particularly popular or referenced highly, but that serve as token examples of a concept should be kept around for conceptual completeness. You have argued elsewhere that in this case, the concept itself should be given its own article. I think that in the case of programming languages, the concept, which may just be a mere combination of certain features, does not always warrant such an article. Again, if such languages are removed, then Wikipedia is no longer a comprehensive source of information on the topic and we must look elsewhere. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, there is no "elsewhere", so now we are without such a resource and those seeking a comprehensive overview of functional programming languages will be lost in the dark. Morgan Sutherland (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)"

Morgan Sutherland (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia being the only place to hold information on a subject is not a reason to keep it. Quite the opposite, in fact; Wikipedia being the only source on a topic is a reason to delete that topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the keep votes above. This article seems to me to meet the general notability guideline. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the keep votes above. I believe this article adds value to Wikipedia and should not be removed. Also a new article all about Pure was recently posted on blueparen.com. mudgen ^(talk)

1:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

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.