Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C Intermediate Language

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to C (programming language)#Uses. Consensus is to merge. The details of divvying up content between targets (likely duplicating to both?) can be finalized on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C Intermediate Language

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

Not notable. Qwertyus (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to C programming language#Related_languages. CIL (C Intermediate Language) is at least slightly notable. The article already links to a paper published in Springer's Lecture Notes in Computer Science series and searching Google Books/Scholar reveals a few other sources which also mention it. I concur with the nom in not seeing sufficient notability for a entire article about this language, but there are enough WP:RS to properly cite a paragraph describing this variant of C in C programming language#Related_languages. --Mike Agricola (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to C programming language#Uses. (merge to C programming language#Related_languages would be OK, too). The C Intermediate Language is verifiable and is one of the subjects of an article on low-level semantics. But I've been unable to find multiple in-depth reliable sources needed to pass general notability guidelines WP:GNG. As a verifiable and somewhat notable topic, we should strive to preserve the information, per WP:PRESERVE and Mike Agricola's suggestion of a merge is a good one. C-based intermediate languages are mentioned in C programming language#Uses so I'd have a preference for that section, but agree that C programming language is the right target article for the merge. --Mark viking (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to George Necula, who is the researcher behind all this. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. Qwertyus (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: The nominator redirected the article to George Necula#Life and work in spite of this AfD. Because this AfD was still in progress at the time and other editors have posted different opinions, I have reverted the nominator's redirect and relisted this discussion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I wasn't fully aware of the procedure and thought that, because the redirect solution does not involve an actual deletion, I was allowed to be bold. Qwertyus (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my opinion, the redirect destination should reflect the sort of context that the majority of readers who use "C Intermediate Language" as a search term are looking for. To put that more concretely, do most readers look up CIL to learn about (1) George Necula's involvement in its creation, or do they want to learn about (2) the language itself, its software applications, and its relationship to other versions of C? Although we can only guess at the motivations which lead others to look up information on CIL, my intuition is that option (2) is more applicable. Therefore, I'm maintaining my vote on the article redirect destination, although I can concur with Mark viking that C programming language#Uses is a good choice for the specific section to which to address the redirect. I would just note though that the merged text should clearly reflect George Necula's involvement in CIL's creation. Anyone looking for information on him can easily find it through a wikilink on his name. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you say is true. However, given the size of the C (programming language) article, it's entirely probably that some future combination of edits will remove all reference to CIL and George Necula from the page. By redirecting to an improved George Necula (I've just tweaked it a little) page the content is safe and indeed there's space for some expansion. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree. Given the academic/experimental nature of the language, I think it's more appropriate to redirect to the academic that created it than to the article on C. CIL's notability is minute in comparison to that of C. Qwertyus (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that all participants, including the nominator, seem to have reached consensus that merge and redirect is the best action here--the only question is the proper target. Since deletion is off the table, I suggest that we could close this discussion and continue the merge discussion on the article talk page. --Mark viking (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.