Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behavioral Description 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Description Language[edit]

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources that weren't self-published. Orphan for 4.5 years. Note: there is also a redir at BDL (Behavioral Description Language) ― Padenton|✉ 08:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep behavioral description language as an article on the generic concept. No opinion on Behavioral Description Language as NEC's in-house version of it.

I'm also concerned that this is yet another bulk nomination (of very many) from the same nominator, all with the same blanket "Just not notable" rationale and no evidence of any effort at WP:BEFORE. Behavioral description language is a big topic with a vast range of sources (even if WP hasn't got there yet). Given the close naming overlap between the two articles, it's implausible that Behavioral Description Language can be nominated as "Unable to find any sources" without having first had to wade through a great many on the generic topic. This is a complex question for notability and requires per-source judgement, not simply a "just not notable". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: No, sadly, I actually wasted a good bit of time looking up every single one of these. Perhaps you should stick with policy-based arguments rather than ad hominem and hatchet jobs. ― Padenton|✉ 13:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one - you see that's the trouble, we know you didn't. There are hundreds of them. It takes far too long for someone with your busy workload of nominating every minor programming language for AfD to have done that sort of legwork to the requisite level.

You have nominated all of them with a boilerplate rationale, "Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources." Any sources. Yet many of these, like Brooks, are obscure, arcane languages that cite one conference paper by their authors. That doesn't mean they're notable or not, but it does indicate that they're going to be damn difficult to really judge one way or the other. How about Oak? (tiny article, few sources, no-one has heard of it). You AfD'ed Napier88 and PRODed Hope, yet they're two languages where a whole generation of Scottish postgrads founded their careers on them. Crap articles, especially on technically complex subjects, are not simply judged as "just not notable" by the current length of a WP article.

When you state, "Unable to find any sources." for an article that already has one credible journal entry and had others until they were removed a week or two back, then such a rationale is grossly inaccurate.

For this article it's really hard to judge sources. Is the source referring to BDL (NEC) or bdl (generic)? I suspect that BDL coverage is indeed scant and that an article under this precise topic (unlike bdl) can't stand. However it's very obvious that "Unable to find any sources." is not a truthful nomination. There are acres of sources for the generic bdl and it is not an easy task to tell them apart. You just haven't had the time to do that, even if so inclined.

How many of these language articles have you sent to AfD? How many have you actually looked at before rubber-stamping? You've been editing a month and your main topic seems to consist of these language AfDs above all else. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every single one. Actually, someone sent this list to me after they saw my last batch (of which, almost all ended up delete yesterday I might add), and I took a look at each and every one, before I went and nominated them. This is not the place to discuss other AfDs. This article isn't on the general topic, this article is on the language. Wikipedia is not the place for obscure arcane languages that havae only 1 conference paper by the languages creator. Anyone can write a conference paper.

I haven't touched Oak, stop making false claims. I PROD'd Napier88, it was AFD'd by someone else. I merely voted on it. Obix had 1 one other. I have nearly 3000 edits, and if you looked at my contributions page for longer than 5 seconds you'd see several other topics.

Now, I would appreciate if you would stop following me to make false claims about me at my AfDs. If you want to disagree with me, go for it, I welcome it. But make it based on Wikipedia policy, do not write false claims about me, do not edit my words when quoting me just so you have something to attack, and do not bring irrelevant AfDs into another AfD, cluttering it up. ― Padenton|✉ 14:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned and no references since 2010 ignoring one unclear nine years old paper not mentioning "Behavioral Description Language" in its abstract. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect a one line description to the list at hardware description language#HDLs for digital circuit design. A simple WP:BEFORE style search shows BDL has been described in at least a few peer-reviewed papers and a book chapter, but they all seem to be primary sources. I was unable to find multiple in depth secondary sources for this particular language, so it doesn't pass notability threshold, but basic facts about the language are verifiable. In a larger context, BDL is an example of a hardware description language designed for high level synthesis of digital circuits. As a verifiable language, we should preserve this per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. A merge to the list at the HDL article seems the best place. Andy is correct that the class of behavioral description languages is a notable topic and deserves an article. Until that is written, we could create a redirect to High-level synthesis, where behavioral synthesis is described. --Mark viking (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move—to Behavioral description languages. Given 317 hits on gscholar and 4110 hits on gbooks I'm confident that there's enough in the way of WP:RS to support an article on the general topic (and the NEC language can be cited as one example among many). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect as User:Mark viking suggested above. Neutrality^talk 20:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A google search failed to come up with any reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A google search brought up this, this, this and this, among other hits, all of which describe BDL and its purpose, giving me confidence that it's possible to write a good, neutral article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Ritchie333's sources.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:19, 12 May 2015 (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.