Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureScript

PureScript

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

Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. ― Padenton|✉ 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. PureScript is quite notable, almost comparable to Elm (programming language).—wing gundam 16:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wing gundam: can you provide any sources establishing its notability per WP:GNG? Or improve the article? I don't feel strongly either way. ― Padenton|✉ 16:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't feel strongly, you shouldn't have nominated it for deletion! Your unthoughtful deletionist agenda is clear as day. --IO Device (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I may have seen this mentioned once or twice on the Haskell mailing list, which doesn't really say much by itself. I'd say this is not anywhere near as notable as Elm. The GitHub repository does have a rather large number of stargazers, so I'd like to investigate at least a little more. Could only find some self-published sources so far. —Ruud 12:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought only German Wikipedia is so crazy about deletions... :-(. PureScript is accepted as a Google Summer of Code Project (AFAIK), has been presented on several international conferences (Strange Loop, flatMap, ...?) and is a very practible language. The last can't be sad about all other languages haveing a Wikipedia article --Thkoch2001 (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are a commercial user of PureScript and employ 3 full-time PureScript engineers. I don't think any company in the world employs 3 full-time Elm engineers. -- John A. De Goes, CTO SlamData — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:8700:72F:341C:7C2:99B3:9A0F (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, counting three self-published sources without any 3rd party reference as self-promotional spam. "Maybe seen on a mailing list" is not the same as notable, and yes, dewiki manages to be crazier than enwiki wrt deletions. But an article should still be obviously no hoax here, ignoring the Principality of Sealand and similar grandfathered cruft. GSoC would be better than "sourceforge"/"github", please add the reference if you find it. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]