Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y (programming language)
- Y (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. The one source I could find was the author's original publication on the language in '81, which according to the ACM digital library has 10 citations. For a paper from 30 years ago, 10 citations is an awfully low number, so I don't think one could use an academic argument for this source establishing notability. Regardless, one source doesn't count as multiple instances of independent coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep, deleting information en masse is never a good idea. If the article really shouldn't be here, I'm sure someone else will nom it. CM should probably chill out on the spree. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, see provided source below. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep, esp. as it relates to peephole optimization, and has a historical context within that purpose. It would make sense to incorporate it within the peephole optimization article with a redirect leading to that, but I do not have the time to do the editing atm. Until someone does, it should be a keep. Nodekeeper (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete, unlike all the other articles that have been nominated by Christopher, because as it is now this microstub is useless. If reborn, it should be mentioned in the article on peephole optimization. --balabiot 09:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Most articles start out as "useless microstubs". That's not an argument for deletion. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely no reliable secondary (or any other kind) sources supplied to establish notability or support any of the claims made in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- See below. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete No demonstrated notability or outside sources. Also at least 2 of the 3 keeps are simply "keep because deletion in general is bad."--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Source Dedicated paper on Y published by ACM. Authoritative, peer-reviewed, independent source, in addition to the source included in the article, satisfies WP:N. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure that's an independent source and not written by the creator of the language? Also the other source used in the article is just a listing and uses this paper you've linked to as its source. So that's really only one source as a directory listing isn't generally considered a good source. SQGibbon (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The paper may (or may not) have been written by the creator of the language, but it's been published by the ACM (the preeminent organization in the field) in a peer-reviewed journal. It is thus an independent source. You are correct that the source listed is basically a very limited and poor reference to the paper I listed, so I'll attempt to round up a few more. The ACM paper alone is sufficient to write a detailed and descriptive article; regardless, I'll endeavour to find more sources to strengthen its case for inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The paper is written by the creator of the language, which means it cannot be used to prove the existance of reliable secondary sources (per the GNG). --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- The paper may (or may not) have been written by the creator of the language, but it's been published by the ACM (the preeminent organization in the field) in a peer-reviewed journal. It is thus an independent source. You are correct that the source listed is basically a very limited and poor reference to the paper I listed, so I'll attempt to round up a few more. The ACM paper alone is sufficient to write a detailed and descriptive article; regardless, I'll endeavour to find more sources to strengthen its case for inclusion. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure that's an independent source and not written by the creator of the language? Also the other source used in the article is just a listing and uses this paper you've linked to as its source. So that's really only one source as a directory listing isn't generally considered a good source. SQGibbon (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Secondary sources: object optimization in Y, peephole optimization in Y, more peephole optimiztion in Y, analysis of instruction set complexity and performance in Y... the list goes on. It would be nice if those claiming that no secondary sources exist made at least a nominal effort to ascertain the truth of that statement before loudly declaring it to be so. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. The source listed immediately previous is written by the creator of the language, which makes it a primary source. The language still fails the general notability guidelines which call for reliable secondary sources. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)