Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XL (programming language) (second nomination)

XL (programming language)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previously nominated with concensus to an article which was already AfD'ed and then merged to create *this* article, which sort of seems like a bad AfD closure. This language is not a notable computer science effort or product. Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Marked for notability for more than two years, only one single reference. Mikeblas (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: King University seem to think that the programming language is notable.SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is shallow, de rigueur coverage; it's a glossary of languages with minimal entries. WP:GNG reminds us that we need significant coverage from multiple sources in order to establish notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Found a research paper ^[1] that has received considerable citations and a couple sites like ycombinator and IT History Society that suggests there was at-least some academic interest in it. However, it might be better to have a condensed and brief article. Wikishagnik (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the links you offer are 404. Was there a typo in ... both? ycombinator is just a forum, so I don't think it's WP:RS. I find this link over at the ITHistory site, but it's shallow, de regeur coverage and I don't think the three sentences it contains establish notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether credible sources exist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a prominent programming language --Devokewater 17:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you reach that conclusion? Are you able to share the evidence that you've found? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ Hemmerling, Gerhard. "The rule-based language XL and the modelling environment GroIMP illustrated with simulated tree competition". Functional Plant Biology: 9, 10 – via researchgate.

[1] Hemmerling, Gerhard. "The rule-based language XL and the modelling environment GroIMP illustrated with simulated tree competition". Functional Plant Biology: 9, 10 – via researchgate.

[1]