Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy (programming language)

Joy (programming language)

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

This language does not meet the general notability guideline. Here's what I found on a search:

One paper by the author presented at EuroForth, which which has 3 citations according to Google Scholar and doesn't even appear in the ACM digital library
Another paper with one citation, according to ACM
An interview with the creator from "no stinking loops"
something else from "no stinking loops"
some blogs

Two extremely-poorly-cited papers don't establish notability from an academic standpoint, and two articles by "Stevan Apter of no stinking loops" isn't reliable and independent coverage from multiple sources. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint: Joy is notable for two reasons. First, Joy is itself the first attempt to establish any kind of theoretical basis for the success that stack-based languages have had in specific areas of computing; the most notable such success was Postscript, with Forth coming in a remote second. Second, Joy is an essential link in the evolution of stack-based programming languages from Forth and Postscript to the modern Factor language. Without the papers on von Thun's site (written using Joy as their notation) Factor would have looked very different.

Joy is a specific programming language which (fairly recently) broke new ground in a previously unstudied area of computer language syntax. That there are no researchers (in acadamia) working in this field does not mean the field does not exist; the field is notable for its extensive practical use and the fact that until von Thun (the author of Joy) wrote his research up on his website, there was no theoretical basis for all this practical common use. Will it ever be studied? That question is not something that should be decided as part of a discussion of whether to delete a page.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]