Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Join Java

Join Java

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

PROD contested with no reason given. No outside verifiable significant coverage to establish notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

All were nominated using the back door deletion process called PROD. It allows a single person to tag the article, and if uncontested for a few days any editor with delete privileges can delete it, without any public review outside of the obscure PROD list. Especially sneaky considering the Keep outcome at the last AFD for some of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:49, 1 March 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]
Keep There are 4 journal articles about it listed in the article's References. The third-party peer review involved in getting a journal article accepted+published makes these sufficiently independent for notability purposes, at least in my view. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There area also a number of derivative works referencing this work in google scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.34.160 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC) ~~This template must be substituted.~~ internode.com.au dynamic IP users have made numerous Wikipedia edits, such as this one: 2009-04-09 121.45.34.101 Operating system. Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. —Ruud 21:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to say I have no real desire to have this article deleted. However, I need to point out that, given that the four references in the article are all written by it's creator, you're going to actually need to refer to at least one other source that can be considered reliable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick Benton, Luca Cardelli, Cédric Fournet. "Modern concurrency abstractions for C#". ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 26 (5):
  The work that is most closely related to Polyphonic C# is that on Join Java [Itzstein and Kearney 2001, 2002]. Join Java, which was initially designed at about the same time as Polyphonic C#, takes almost exactly the same approach to integrating join calculus in a modern object-oriented language. Apart from minor variations of syntax, the main language differences appear to be that Join Java takes a more restrictive approach to inheritance than Polyphonic C# (simply outlawing inheritance from any class that uses join patterns) and that Join Java also allows the programmer to specify whether pattern matching within a class should be sequential or nondeterministic. The implementation of Join Java uses a tree-based pattern-matching library; some further details are given by Itzstein and Jasiunas [2003].
  —Ruud 12:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So throw that in the article! I don't know how much clearer I can make it, I have no issue with this article's existence provided it has accurate, independent and verifiable sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That being said, the source just seems to say that Polyphonic C# is similar to this, it's not really more than trivial coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://ijcsit.com/docs/vol1issue1/ijcsit2010010101.pdf Asynchronous method invocation in Join java and polyphonic c#
- http://www.cse.tkk.fi/fi/opinnot/T-106.5800/2009_Spring-Seminar_on_Multicore_Programming/slides/explicit-slides.pdf presentation that talks about Join Java. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.34.160 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]