Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice (programming language)

Alice (programming language)

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

Obscure programming language. I can't find any notable sources. Language has had the "notability" tag for over a year. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obscure? tried a Google search? This is an important language for students --DeVerm (talk) 03:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I believe you have confused this language with Alice (software), which I agree is notable! Christopher Monsanto (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like User:Christopher Monsanto decided to delete all languages he does not understand. I found the language are very interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey shandar (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Assume good faith! I marked articles for AfD that I could not find any reliable sources for. This article is about Alice ML, not Alice (software). Christopher Monsanto (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Assume good faith! I'm trying to prevent accidental deletion of good articles when no research of notability has been made by you. It is based on previous experience with Nemerle marked as AfD by you.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are multiple publications about Alice ML in press: http://www.ps.uni-saarland.de/alice/papers.html including respectful scientific magazines. Please remove the deletion tag or your actions will be considered as vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of these are tech reports or theses, which are not peer reviewed, and therefore unacceptable academic sources. The other papers are barely cited -- the most is "A Concurrent Lambda Calculus with Futures" with 15 citations, according to the ACM digital library (probably the most reliable source of citation counts for academic CS papers). Even *then* this paper isn't actually about Alice ML... it discusses a new language construct, and presents the semantics by extending the lambda calculus. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple books, multiple references. here Obviously, this person's research skills leave much to be desired. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of those are about Alice (software). The others that I can see are academic publications, which are poorly cited by the rest of the academic community. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even follow the link... did you? What part of Alice PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE did you not read? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, assume good faith. Second, what exactly is your argument? There are two "programming languages" named Alice -- one developed at Saarland University (this article), and one developed at Carnegie Mellon (not this article). Most of the "sources" on your Google Canada search refer to the Carnegie Mellon one (not this article). How about, instead of just giving a Google search, you give *specific* sources? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, a big disclaimer. I am not a computer scientist. I don't really understand quite what it is you're arguing over beyond some sort of notability issue. To that end, though, there does appear to be a specific mention of Alice (the programming language from Saarland Uni) in this book and an entire chapter devoted to it in this one. Does that help at all? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple books, multiple references. Christopher Monsanto is a saboteur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the nominator isn't going to help this article remain on wikipedia - finding *specific* reliable sources that cover the subject will. Note that these sources don't have to be in English - they can be in French, Russian, Hebrew, whatever. A lot of people here are clearly passionate about the subject. If you love it, find the sources. You'll get to keep a better article. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand the Wikipedia policy nomination for deletion is measure that should be take *after* careful research about language notability. That is the thing that clearly wasn't done here. Even when the "nominator" was pointed to the multiple publications about Alice ML he rejected all of them without investigation. Taking all these thing into account it is pretty difficult to believe in his good faith. As I understand the Wikipedia policy for the "notability" this single publication is enough to be notable: Trends in Functional Programming (volumes 1 & 2) by Greg Michaelson, Phil Trinder and Hans-Wolfgang Loidl (editors volume 1), and Stephen Gilmore (editor volume 2). Intellect Books, Bristol, 2001, 2002, Chapter 6. Alice through the looking glass. It seems pretty reliable to me. Don't you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]