Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosetta Code

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Biker Biker (talk | contribs) at 13:55, 13 October 2012 (tweak). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rosetta Code

Rosetta Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no indication of notability for this website. I searched and could find no reliable sources. While there are links listed on talk, they do not meet WP:RS. As it does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:WEB, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In order to be kept, the notability must be established through references in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vote withdrawal - sorry, at the moment I don't have opportunity to read through the catalogue of reasons a page should be deleted vs kept, me thinks a Wikipedia expert is required who knows the keep rules. I see the problem being that Rosettacode is only peer reviewed and it is a purely electronic entity. Hence Rosettacode in not in newsprint, and would have few paper scholarly citations.
Question: There are 40+ "wikilinks" to http://rosettacode.org. Are these links & contributions (under the same "delete-me/AfD" reasoning) set to be removed too? {re: WP:BOLD (with civility, please!): I'm thinking, if so then it would be polite to add an appropriate "delete-me" note to the both the wikilinks and other wikipedia links/URL's also. e.g these other pages: Google: site:wikipedia with rosettacode => About 261 results (0.24 seconds)}. NevilleDNZ (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not those links are removed has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Here, we are simply trying to decide whether or not the subject is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, which is a different standard than we use for determining what can be linked/cited. It's certainly plausible that a number of those links should be removed, but that would be a separate discussion to be held in each of those pages. While I would personally remove all of them (and I would recommend doing so even if the article is not deleted), I'm not going to take the effort to go track them all down. There's millions of improper links on Wikipedia, so it's just a matter of fixing the ones we see as we see them. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your generalised delete all links is a tad harsh and this indirect AfD lacks a certain amount of transparency as the numerous affected pages are not engaged nor given any notice. Similary: If you want the page removed, then it would be reasonable to also take the time to follow through and notify each page then fix the wikilinks that will be broken ... c.f. WP:BOLD (with civility, please!). If you don't have the time I can help you post advance notice on the appropriate pages. NevilleDNZ (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, and you cannot do so either--that would violate WP:CANVAS. We never do that for AfDs (backtrack all "what links here" and notify them). That's simply beyond the scope of an AfD notification. And I think we had some miscommunication--I'm saying that if there are any external links to the actual Rosetta Code website, those should be removed. Internal links can be kept--they'll just go red; then others may remove them later (leaving them in the text, but as regular black text), or the can stay red and if the site ever does become notable in the future, they would automatically relink if the article were recreated. At worst, the closing admin could do the deletion such that it automtatically removed all of the wikilinks; however, if it did so, the text would remain (black text), just no wikilink. Thus, no harm comes to those articles in any way.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re: I checked out WP:CANVAS and it reads: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." ... I suggest you change your "interpretation" of WP:CANVAS (and maybe even WP:GNG or WP:WEB) in favour of the better idea of simply "notifying other editors". In this case the watch list of editors is well defined, and better then drawing from our own lists of editors.
As I said at the beginning "at the moment I don't have opportunity to read through the catalogue of reasons a page should be deleted vs kept", and it seems that in order to keep an entirely reasonable page I am be being barraged but a mountain of WP:RULESANDREGS to research, when all I see that is needed is simple common sense.
BTW: I did a simple google scholarly search and found RossettaCode.org specifically mentioned in:
  • "Lambda calculus with types" H Barendregt, W Dekkers, R Statman - Handbook of logic in computer …, - cs.ru.nl Springer Publishing
  • "Touching factor: software development on tablets - M Hesenius, C Orozco Medina, D Herzberg - Software Composition, 2012 - Springer"
  • "The Implementation of Zoning for Winner Determination in Combinatorial Spectrum Auction - A Purbasari, A Zulianto - Informatics and Computational …, 2011 - [1]"
  • "CyberMate∼ Artificial Intelligent business help desk assistant with instance messaging services - NT Weerawarna, H Haththella… - … (ICIIS), 2011 6th …, 2011 - ieeexplore.ieee.org"
  • "Software Mutational Robustness: Bridging The Gap Between Mutation Testing and Evolutionary Biology - E Schulte, ZP Fry, E Fast, S Forrest… - arXiv preprint arXiv: …, 2012 - [2]"
  • "101companies: a community project on software technologies and software languages - JM Favre, R Lämmel, T Schmorleiz… - Objects, Models, …, 2012 - Springer"
  • "Using Domain Specific Language for modeling and simulation: ScalaTion as a case study - JA Miller, J Han, M Hybinette - Simulation Conference (WSC), …, 2010 - ieeexplore.ieee.org"
  • "Advances in Sensors, Signals, Visualization, Imaging and Simulation - MICHAL MUSILEK, STEPAN HUBALOVSKY - University of Hradec Kralove - CZECH REPUBLIC"
  • "On the algorithmic nature of the world - H Zenil, JP Delahaye - arXiv preprint arXiv:0906.3554, 2009 - arxiv.org"
  • "Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference - Using Domain Specific Languages for Modeling and Simulation: ScalaTion as a Case Study - John A. Miller, Jun Han, Maria Hybinette, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Georgia"
  • "Linking Documentation and Source Code in a Software Chrestomathy - JM Favre, R Lämmel, M Leinberger, T Schmorleiz… - University of Koblrenz".
  • "Prediksi Pergerakan Kurva Harga Saham dengan Metode Simple Moving Average Menggunakan C++ dan Qt Creator - A Rahmadhani, MM Mandela, T Paul… - … dan Simposium Fisika, 2012 - prosiding.papsi.org"
  • "Using XQuery for problem solving - P Kilpeläinen - Software: Practice and Experience, 2011 - Wiley Online Library"
  • etc… &c.…
You also claim both WP:GNG or WP:WEB in yet you appear not to have done the basic due diligence with a simple google scholarly search. It would have been a travesty if your AfD had of succeeded. I believe your intentions are probably well meaning, and you certainly have experience as your "User page" states: "Admin statistics Pages deleted 901", if it were not for this I would simply call the original AfD a glaring case of vandalism.
Is there a safe guard that can be implemented on AfD to make sure this does not happen again, eg a compulsory google scholarly search. Certainly listing a page at AfD for a week, where it is only viewed by "passer bys" and "resident AfD-ers", the unceremoniously (and silently) dumping the page defies common sense. Maybe the one week time frame should be adapted and extended based on the actual activity of the related pages. (Not all editors live 24×7 on wikipedia)
Bottom line is that a resource of AfD feed back and discussion would be simply the editors of the wikipedia pages that reference the topic.
In summary: Fundermentally, to (IMHO) specifically and silently excluding these watch list editors is misguided and discounts overall wikipedia transparency.
NevilleDNZ (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not ever notify editors that way. Ever. Ever. If you notify them, I will revert you, and report you to WP:ANI, since you have been clearly warned that we do not do this. You may place a notice on a relevant WikiProject, or you may notify people who've edited Rosetta Code before. Someone who is watching a page that happens to link to Rosetta Code (which may, in fact, link to dozens or hundreds of other Wikipages) has no particular interet in this page. And if you want major changes to AfD, go to WT:AFD and propose them there--don't try to use that here as some sort of smokescreen to cover up the non-notability of this website.
As for your Google scholar search, that means nothing. Does even one of those discuss the site in detail? Or are they merely referencing where a specific piece of code came from? WP:GNG and WP:WEB require detailed discussion, not just a reference. So, until evidence is provided that the site is discussed in detail, I still hold that the article should be deleted. As Dominus states below, if you can actually show the coverage required in policy, I'll not only change my !vote, I'll withdraw the nomination and apologize. But I don't see it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep site, maybe the the site is not referenced that often. I see this often with community sites, there are less references because the main content/work/reference is on the site itself. There are several thousand users registered on RC and in the last month more than one hundred people contributed/worked/changed something. This has to be considered as well. Peter.kofler (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
No, no in fact it doesn't. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please try to provide arguments that are valid per WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth adding Template:Not a ballot at the top?
The hardened AfD contributors may well know the ropes. But the editors defensively tagged as "Wikipedia:Single-purpose account" possibly do not. { FYI: I very much doubt that the current editors tagged WPA are "editing for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy." Suggest you consider: (From WP:SPA)
  • New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.
  • Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. }
At this point, given that under WP:CANVAS (and with the comment "We do not ever notify editors that way. Ever. Ever. If you notify them, I will revert you, and report you to WP:ANI..." ) I have nothing to add. {I hope I will have a moment this week to track some "Wikipedia Notable" reviews solely about RC, it would be nice to be permitted a RC expert point me in the right direction.}
NevilleDNZ (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE the contributions on this page by NevilleDNZ should be considered in the context of his contributions at http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code:Village_Pump/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosetta_Code which has undoubtedly been the reason why so many new editors have popped up to contribute to this AfD discussion. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosetta_Code&oldid=517573930"