Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just another Perl hacker

Just another Perl hacker

[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)

Half of the article is listing out examples of Just another Perl hacker, which we don't need. There isn't much info found online about this either, leading me to believe there aren't sufficient sources to establish notability. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perl#Perl_pastimes, where it is mentioned. This a bit of perl culture that has been documented in reliable sources, e.g., [1], but not in great depth. I haven't found the in-depth sources needed to satisfy GNG and support a standalone article. As an alternative to deletion, per our policy WP:ATD, I suggest redirecting to the short Pastimes section in the Perl article, or alternatively, to Randal L. Schwartz, who popularized the practice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perl#Perl_pastimes per above. Sanketio31 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Honestly, the coverage in secondary sources looks sufficient to me. If a Redirect is desired that's fine, but the topic is notable enough to be covered in multiple books: (1), (2), (3). Suriname0 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding these sources. Unless I misunderstood, the first and third sources refer to the same book. The first source does have depth sufficient to qualify as in-depth and independent. The second source I can only see a small snippet of, so cannot tell if it is in depth. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like the link might have died (or I borked it); I can no longer see the pages. It was two pages of coverage in a textbook, which seemed compelling to me. I thought it was different than the 2nd, but of course I can no longer verify that. I won't fight to save this article; I'll leave that for more interested parties. Just cause the sources exist to support an independent article doesn't mean it shouldn't be Redirected. Suriname0 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the page loaded after a few retries. It was [www.oreilly.com/catalog/advperl2/ this book], page 262-263 in Chapter 10, which as you point out means that (1) and (3) are the same. Apologies for the confusion. Suriname0 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]