Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure (programming language) (2nd nomination)

Pure (programming language)

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

PROD contested with no reason given. No outside verifiable significant sources that establish notability for inclusion. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep German IT magazine article, ACM journal article that apparently talks about it, refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings. This more than meets the GNG minimum. Read the prior AfD(s) beforehand next time. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources that you have provided are far from convincing. Granted, I can't read the first one, but the only mention of Pure in the entire article in the second one is: "Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler," which makes it hardly suitable. Finally, the third is written by the developer of the language and is hardly independent. Additionally, the previous AfD was a withdrawal (which doesn't mean that it can't be speedily re-nominated) and was withdrawn due to numerous attacks on the user over other AfDs. This AfD is no way a bad faith nomination; a little WP:AGF is needed. Finally, it is still the imperative of the writers of articles to source them with reliable sources, not for readers of the articles to go out and look for them, and especially when the language has such a common word for a name, those with limited technical knowledge can easily be swamped looking for proper sources. The best way to defend this article would be to put WP:RS sources into the article, rather than simply stating they exist. Ravendrop 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the 2nd source; I was just going off what was claimed at the prior AfD, so that criticism is valid. Regarding the 3rd source, I believe the refereeing provides sufficient independence. Finally, I was not commenting on ~~your~~ the nom's faith or propriety, I was merely commenting on ~~your~~ the nom's diligence in observing WP:BEFORE. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the second, but as I do have full access to it and can confirm that's all it says. On the third, I'm still wary because its still written by the developed. I think it can work as a an additional source, but not the primary or only source. Lastly, I didn't nominate the article, and was not attempting to criticize you directly, but more of putting it on record so that someone doesn't quickly look at the discussion and not realize that the previous AfD wasn't as cut and dry as it appears on the surface. Ravendrop 08:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no independent, in-depth treatment of this language from WP:RS. Would be willing to change my vote if some is found. Ravendrop 07:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What beef do you have with the German article? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, or someone else, verify that it is a WP:RS. Ravendrop 04:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - It's from iX (magazine), a magazine for IT professionals published by Heinz Heise; see also Google translation of dewiki article on iX. It's apparent from skimming that the article is entirely about Pure.--Cybercobra (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references provided above (one refereed article + two independent mentions) and by being the successor to Q (equational programming language). —Ruud 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or WP:Buro Renomination churning of recent AfD closed with ten Keep !votes, one Delete !vote, cited references, and withdrawal of the nomination by the nominator. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting harder and harder to AGF with you. It has been pointed out to you multiple times that the previous AfD closed due to outside canvassing and harassment, something widely accepted. Argue keep for actual reasons, not this one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no knowledge of or interest in these rumors. I think that this nomination could have waited for three months. Unscintillating (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are not rumours, they are fact. And that you don't know of them doesn't mean that you can ignore them or pretend they don't exist. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Additionally, there is no policy that says that withdrawn Afds have to wait any time period before they can be re-nominated. It is perfectly acceptable to re-nominate them at any time afterwards. As of now you have not given any policy based reasons to keep this article. Ravendrop 04:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no interest. Whatever your issue is, it could have waited three months, there is no deadline at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm can't AGF at this point, and just need to point out that Unscintillating is purposely playing the fool despite full knowledge of the Reddit canvassing incident.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]