Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fly (programming language)
AfDs for this article:
- Fly_(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)
At its simplest, the wikipedia page has more information than the user's webpage. Furthermore, the only pertinent link on the entire page goes to the user's personal webserver (no URL, just an IP). This, combined with no visible work on the language itself suggests a real lack of notability. No amount of improvement to the wiki-page will suffice when there is a lack of information in existence. Gundato (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete The only Citation/reference for the language that isn't broken is NOT actually related to the language in the article. Moreover, The only page related to the work itself is the author's home server. Also, I'm inclined to think that the language doesn't actually exist considering I can find no reference code or compiler. There doesn't seem to be anything at all. I also feel the syntax bears a striking resemblance to cool (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_(programming_language) which is a language used to teach CS students about compilers. Given this, my guess is that the language is more or less the authors first experience creating a language and he created the wiki article to go along with that (the author did create the article if you check the history). In general, there is a complete lack of notability. snaphat (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note, I just removed all unrelated citations/references. They look to be an attempt to simply make the article look notable. snaphat (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N is quite clear - notability depends on 3rd party sources, not self-publishing alone. No evidence for any 3rd party notice here. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - There is a Fly programming language but that isn't the same one as the one considered here. There is no coverage about this in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I'm the author of the language (and the wikipedia entry). I can assure you the Fly language is real enough :) It will be featured in the LLVM release notes for 3.0. The "home server" is not a home server, there's just no domain for it. Updated wikipedia page, so that the google code project page is linked instead. The cited papers are very much relevant, but should be external links I suppose, instead of references (?). The "striking resemblance" to Cool is no more striking than C#'s resemblance to Java. All modern OO languages share similar syntax. That said, Fly isn't even close to Cool semantically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- They are still generic references that don't have anything specific to do with your language. As Andy said, notability depends on 3rd party sources. To be a source, it should actually reference your work. If the LLVM release notes do mention it, that will count as one source. I am not familiar with Wiki's policies, but as it stands, zero (third party) sources is definitely not enough. I understand that you are excited to work on your own project, but if everyone with a website and a passing knowledge of Wiki's mark-up made pages for their work, Wiki would be a LOT bigger than it currently is. That is why notability is an issue. Gundato (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hence, I am advocating making them external links, since they're very much relevant. "My" project is an open source project, using a free license, just like [Pure], for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- And that is great. But the fact of the matter is, you still don't have any third-party sources. That is the big issue for notability, as Andy mentioned. The issue isn't that you don't have enough citations. It is that not enough people cited you. Whether or not you (or myself) agree, Wiki's policy for notability is "Is this cited by a bunch of third party sources?". That is the issue. Not "Does this cite a bunch of third party sources?". And as far as Pure goes, that probably also should be deleted (it seems to have no third party references), but I'll let a different person nominate that. Gundato (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- I know what notability means. The language is discussed at various mailing lists, irc, etc. And I'm happy to provide source code for the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I actually don't think you do know what Wikipedia's definition of notability is. WP:N is a good start. Discussion on mailing lists and IRC are nice, but can you actually cite them? I am sure you can understand why the honor system probably wouldn't work in this case. Furthermore, are these independent sources as in Wikipedia:Independent_sources? Or are they posts on mailing lists from the creator of the language (this includes those that are responses to the creator as well)? And the source code won't be a third-party reference by virtue of having been written by the creator of the project (I would hope). This isn't a question of whether or not work exists. This appearing to be just another unstarted project on a sourceforge/google-projects site isn't the issue here. It is the lack of notability. And again, that is Wikipedia's definition of notability. Gundato (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which I understand. I'm just saying the language is real, and I can prove it. If that's not good enough, then feel free to remove the wikipedia page. I mostly don't care. Also, you seem to be confused about URL's, domain names and IP addresses. A URL can contain an IP address. And IP address doesn't not necessarily point to someone's "home server". This level of lack of technical insight from a wikipedian is slightly scary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- As stated by Gundato, whether or not the language exists isn't the problem. Only the notability is at issue here and that hinges on 3rd party references as explained in previous comments. In regard to the URL/IP talk, please note that Wikipedia is not about winning (WP:WIN). Moreover, everyone is wrong sometimes (Wikipedia:Admitting_you're_wrong). Please, be civil and stay on topic :-). snaphat (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- The competence of wikipedians is always on topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- As stated by Gundato, whether or not the language exists isn't the problem. Only the notability is at issue here and that hinges on 3rd party references as explained in previous comments. In regard to the URL/IP talk, please note that Wikipedia is not about winning (WP:WIN). Moreover, everyone is wrong sometimes (Wikipedia:Admitting_you're_wrong). Please, be civil and stay on topic :-). snaphat (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Which I understand. I'm just saying the language is real, and I can prove it. If that's not good enough, then feel free to remove the wikipedia page. I mostly don't care. Also, you seem to be confused about URL's, domain names and IP addresses. A URL can contain an IP address. And IP address doesn't not necessarily point to someone's "home server". This level of lack of technical insight from a wikipedian is slightly scary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I actually don't think you do know what Wikipedia's definition of notability is. WP:N is a good start. Discussion on mailing lists and IRC are nice, but can you actually cite them? I am sure you can understand why the honor system probably wouldn't work in this case. Furthermore, are these independent sources as in Wikipedia:Independent_sources? Or are they posts on mailing lists from the creator of the language (this includes those that are responses to the creator as well)? And the source code won't be a third-party reference by virtue of having been written by the creator of the project (I would hope). This isn't a question of whether or not work exists. This appearing to be just another unstarted project on a sourceforge/google-projects site isn't the issue here. It is the lack of notability. And again, that is Wikipedia's definition of notability. Gundato (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- I know what notability means. The language is discussed at various mailing lists, irc, etc. And I'm happy to provide source code for the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- And that is great. But the fact of the matter is, you still don't have any third-party sources. That is the big issue for notability, as Andy mentioned. The issue isn't that you don't have enough citations. It is that not enough people cited you. Whether or not you (or myself) agree, Wiki's policy for notability is "Is this cited by a bunch of third party sources?". That is the issue. Not "Does this cite a bunch of third party sources?". And as far as Pure goes, that probably also should be deleted (it seems to have no third party references), but I'll let a different person nominate that. Gundato (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hence, I am advocating making them external links, since they're very much relevant. "My" project is an open source project, using a free license, just like [Pure], for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- They are still generic references that don't have anything specific to do with your language. As Andy said, notability depends on 3rd party sources. To be a source, it should actually reference your work. If the LLVM release notes do mention it, that will count as one source. I am not familiar with Wiki's policies, but as it stands, zero (third party) sources is definitely not enough. I understand that you are excited to work on your own project, but if everyone with a website and a passing knowledge of Wiki's mark-up made pages for their work, Wiki would be a LOT bigger than it currently is. That is why notability is an issue. Gundato (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:N entirely. LiteralKa (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete currently fails WP:RS and name makes it very hard to find references using google etc. Author appears unable or unwilling to supply independent WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not unwilling. There simply aren't any yet.
- Delete I agree my article doesn't meet notability guidelines. There will soon be third party citations, though. Will it be possible to restore the page if it gets deleted now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment if you have an account and ask for it, the article can be userified, i.e. removed from the main namespace and copied to the user namespace where you can work on it. I suggest that doign this would be a good way to resolve this impass. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Paper on the way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.125.220 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: The above IP is the same IP as fly language's home page mentioned by the OP of the AfD (it was changed to the googlecode page a few edits ago). It is actually a range owned by a hosting company called eboundhost.com. I checked this out a few days ago after the author mentioned that the IP wasn't a residential/home server. snaphat (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Notability depends on 3rd party references. A citation for the authors' own paper(s). won't help the article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. snaphat (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note Correct, posted from the Fly projects server (formerly fly.openwing.org - still searchable). While not the language author, I work on the project in various ways, mostly documentation. I suppose the GIT and wiki will be opened to a lot of other people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note An to reiterate what I said before. The project supports the removal of the page after reading the guidelines. However, will it be possible to recreate the article once the student paper is done (or other 3'rd party sources appeard)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- SIGH... and to add to the confusion, both ip's are vnc-shared work machines/servers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note An to reiterate what I said before. The project supports the removal of the page after reading the guidelines. However, will it be possible to recreate the article once the student paper is done (or other 3'rd party sources appeard)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note My take as project member... there's a lot of stuff going on, and there will be citations shortly. I agree that the page can be removed, but what's the point if there soon will be citable material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.212.120 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)