Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idris (programming language)

Idris (programming language)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All the sources offered and all that I could find by Googling are WP:PRIMARY and thus unsuitable. This could be a case where sources may soon become available to establish notability and the article could be resurrected. But Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IDRIS is important enough to have been proposed for inclusion in an undergraduate program, A proposed curriculum for an undergraduate software engineering degree, and Brady's "IDRIS---: systems programming meets full dependent types" has been cited 24 times, such third-party sources include:

Middelkoop, A. (2012), Inference of Program Properties with Attribute Grammars, Revisited (PDF) In Coq, but also in other dependently typed languages such as Agda [Norell, 2009], Epigram [McBride, 2004], and IDRIS [Brady, 2011], properties of type system can be expressed as types of the inference algorithm. --Bejnar (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding. This is what you count as source that would contribute toward the significant coverage required to establish notability? Here's the whole thing: "In Coq, but also in other dependently typed languages such as Agda [Norell, 2009], Epigram [McBride, 2004], and IDRIS [Brady, 2011], properties of type system can be expressed as types of the inference algorithm." The bibliography gives the reference as a 9-page paper by the author of the language. That's it. This doesn't come close. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search on "Idris programming language" hit 73,600 results (while 31,300 on "Agda programming language" and 39,500 on "Epigram programming language"). The notability of Idris in academia has become significant enough recently. --soimort (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]