Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symsyn

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. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symsyn

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

This article was previously deleted via the PROD method. However, when I saw a page with this name started on the simplewiki, I realized an article about this could be useful and posted to RFU, and the page was restored. Unfortunately, it seems hard to find reliable sources about this topic - maybe this was the reason it got PROD'ed in the first place. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking relevant, independent references - the only ref provided does not mention Symsyn. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical: If an inventor creates a virtual widget and defines it in sufficient detail to obtain a patent (e.g. an algorithm), doesn't that by its nature make this widget an undeniable fact of existence, thereby obviating corroboration?

Are the links with Symsyn at [1] relevant to this discussion? A57795779 (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is deying its existence, just its notability. Links from other parts of Wikipedia don't mean a lot, but independent sources will be of value! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest - google "symsyn programming language" (with and without quotes) A57795779 (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use the links above. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 21:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of notability for what seems to be a one-person effort. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. What is on trial here? Is it Symsyn? (Is Symsyn not 'worthy' of Wikipedia?) Is it Symsyn's creator? Is it the article? Is it the article's original author? A57795779 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has notability requirements which set a threshold for the amount of independent coverage a subject needs to be included. See WP:N. The references need to be reliable, a specific term discussed in WP:RS. Without such references, an article on any software topic is at risk of being deleted.Dialectric (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The syntax and operation of Symsyn are unique among modern languages. While perhaps not notable in the strict Wikipedia sense, many sites in several languages offer free downloads of the ebook. It is referenced on programming language specific sites, e.g.Rosettacode. At least, it should be included in the List of Programming Languages. A57795779 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hobbyist project with no mention in any reliable sources. (Note there are reliable sources discussing software called "SymSyn", but that appears to be completely unrelated software–the SymSyn discussed by reliable sources is software used to design electronic circuits–see e.g. this paper) There is an ebook about Symsyn sold on Amazon.com, but as far as I can tell it is a self-published book, and hence not a reliable source and of little value in establishing notability. SJK (talk) 21:15, 28 March 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.