Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (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. The main argument for keeping this article appears to be "someone has nominated a lot of articles for deletion", which as far as I am aware is not a valid reason for keeping this article. The sources provided have been refuted by the 'delete's as being authored by the creator of the language, and so not independent. The ones which are not written by him are disputed as useable as they are not about Y but about peephole optimisation. However, I would like to commend Throwaway85 for finding the sources, as I feel that this is more effective in argument than just saying "someone shouldn't nominate lots of articles for deletion', especially when at least one of those people used the precise-same-wording in their opposes for all of them! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y (programming language)

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

This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. The one source I could find was the author's original publication on the language in '81, which according to the ACM digital library has 10 citations. For a paper from 30 years ago, 10 citations is an awfully low number, so I don't think one could use an academic argument for this source establishing notability. Regardless, one source doesn't count as multiple instances of independent coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deleting information en masse is never a good idea. If the article really shouldn't be here, I'm sure someone else will nom it. CM should probably chill out on the spree. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see provided source below. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, esp. as it relates to peephole optimization, and has a historical context within that purpose. It would make sense to incorporate it within the peephole optimization article with a redirect leading to that, but I do not have the time to do the editing atm. Until someone does, it should be a keep. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unlike all the other articles that have been nominated by Christopher, because as it is now this microstub is useless. If reborn, it should be mentioned in the article on peephole optimization. --bala^biot 09:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles start out as "useless microstubs". That's not an argument for deletion. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no reliable secondary (or any other kind) sources supplied to establish notability or support any of the claims made in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstrated notability or outside sources. Also at least 2 of the 3 keeps are simply "keep because deletion in general is bad."--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source Dedicated paper on Y published by ACM. Authoritative, peer-reviewed, independent source, in addition to the source included in the article, satisfies WP:N. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's an independent source and not written by the creator of the language? Also the other source used in the article is just a listing and uses this paper you've linked to as its source. So that's really only one source as a directory listing isn't generally considered a good source. SQGibbon (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paper may (or may not) have been written by the creator of the language, but it's been published by the ACM (the preeminent organization in the field) in a peer-reviewed journal. It is thus an independent source. You are correct that the source listed is basically a very limited and poor reference to the paper I listed, so I'll attempt to round up a few more. The ACM paper alone is sufficient to write a detailed and descriptive article; regardless, I'll endeavour to find more sources to strengthen its case for inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is written by the creator of the language, which means it cannot be used to prove the existance of reliable secondary sources (per the GNG). --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it can. You click the google scholar link at the top, click the first link, and click the "cited by" tab. Boom: tons of secondary sources. Rather than assume secondary sources don't exist and base your vote on that assumption, why not simply check first? Throwaway85 (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources: object optimization in Y, peephole optimization in Y, more peephole optimiztion in Y, analysis of instruction set complexity and performance in Y... the list goes on. It would be nice if those claiming that no secondary sources exist made at least a nominal effort to ascertain the truth of that statement before loudly declaring it to be so. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source listed immediately previous is written by the creator of the language, which makes it a primary source. The language still fails the general notability guidelines which call for reliable secondary sources. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage by sources that are independent of the subject? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just listed 4 of them directly above you, and there's plenty more on google scholar.

- - All those four sources are authored by the author of the software, they are not independent. And they are all proceeding papers, not papers in journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far, the only argument for deletion seems to be that there are a lack of secondary sources. I believe I've shown that not to be true. Between the original paper describing Y and the 20 or so citations thereof, using Y for a variety of optimization studies, there's plenty of material available to write a good article on Y. Most of the delete votes, at their heart, seem to be motivated by the fact that Y is no longer in widespread use in academia. The feeling seems to be that, as a "dead" language, it isn't notable. That's simply not what notability means on Wikipedia. We have sources, we can write a good article, so we should do so. To the closing admin, unless one of the people proposing deletion can come up with an argument that doesn't rest upon the lack of sources, their arguments should be discarded as being unsound Throwaway85 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more sources: a few mentions here, here (might be the same as a paper I posted earlier, looks familiar), here (again, might be a repeat, hard to keep track).

These other papers you list here not authored by him, but they seem to be about peephole optimization. This would warrant at most its inclusion in Peephole optimization. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The papers themselves mention the use of Y, if not particular aspects of the programming language. The spec is enough to describe syntax and semantics, as well as defining features of the language, as it is the definitive source on those aspects. The papers mentioning the use of the language in various types of optimization research are sufficient to write authoritatively on its uses. While, in general, we don't rely on primary sources for an overview of the subject, the spec is more than sufficient for this purpose, as it defines particular noteworthy aspects of the language. In the same way, the writings of a philosopher are themselves sufficient to describe a particular theory, while references to that theory are necessary to determine if it is noteworthy. I believe the secondary sources I have found, as well as the others out there, are sufficient to establish Y as notable, without needing to be relied upon to describe the language itself. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ubernostrum very wise words.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is not very helpful. Could you please address the reasons for deletion instead of complaining about deletion sprees? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Ubernostrum simply copy/pasted the same comment in all the nominations of programming languages that were made by monsanto. Throwaway85 has at least attempted to provide sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (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.