Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatnik (programming language)

Beatnik (programming language)

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

Still just as non-notable as it was the last 5 times it was deleted. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail needed to establish notability under WP:GNG. Googling turns up (surprise!) nothing. Msnicki (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Your first argument is invalid – this article has been rewritten and its deletion history has nothing to do to with its present notability. And Google or other search engines don't return nothing. I can talk about the outline of sources, but let's keep the discussion objective. I worked hard to improve this article to fit these criteria and it passed the Articles for Creation submission (@Hasteur and Anarchyte:). We have 3 independent sources on this, so I would recommend to Keep. Here's the list of present sources:

Web address	Summary
oocities.org	a mirror of GeoCities.com
esolangs.org	Esolang, which is the biggest resource about esoteric programming languages.
cliffle.com/esoterica/beatnik.html	It's a self-source, but needed only to address the topic's original announcement.
Bcher Gruppe, Esoterische Programmiersprache.	This book (it's in German) would be the most reliable source. It features the topics title ("Beatnik") in the subtitle.

So, oocities.org is a (copy of defunct) self-published material web host, cliffle.com is a personal website with COI, and esolangs.org is "the biggest resource about esoteric programming languages" (which, true as it may be, is not that impressive). As for the book, see Ruud's comment. I am thoroughly unimpressed; how is that supposed to pass WP:N or WP:NSOFT? Tigraan (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSOFT may not apply here, as it's technically a programming language, not a software. We should even consider creating a separate guideline for esoteric programming languages, I think. I doesn't matter if it's defunct or not, since we have Internet Archive. And self-source is not attributed to someone connected to the topic – it's a webpage of a l33t programming language and can act as an independent source. Besides, come on, this language is a proof-of-concept and won't have plenty of sources as it's not usable. There's no need to collect more sources claiming that this language exists. It qualifies to be an article, because it's an esoteric programming language, not because it's something big and useful. That's the nature of these languages. Esolang wiki would be the widest source in that comparison. It's rather independent, it's not a self-source or a poor quality statement. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some three other sources and emerged them into the article. While catseye.tc seems to be a little mention, those 2 others appears to be OK. They're listed below. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Web address	Summary
wiki.tcl.tk/12671	A Beatnik interpreter on official wiki of the Tcl programming language, seems independent and good quality.
search.cpan.org/~beatnik/Acme-Beatnik-0.02/Beatnik.pm	An another working implementation of the Beatnik language, which can act as an independent reference.
catseye.tc/node/Beatnik	This source is not wide, but it features yet another implementation of the Beatnik language, written in Python.

After these additions the article should be kept. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 20:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4 if applicable, simple delete otherwise. While it was not really "deleted 5 times" (check the links), no RS turned up at search for notability. I do not know if the page is "sufficiently identical" to its former version for the CSD to be applicable, but I suspect it is. Tigraan (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:G4 doesn't apply here. It's not a recreation. This article have been edited for a long time as a draft and then pushed to the mainspace through the AfC submission. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 17:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That book mentioned above is by Books LLC: "Books LLC is an American publisher and a book sales club based in Memphis, Tennessee. Its primary work is collecting Wikipedia and Wikia articles and selling them as printed and downloadable books." —Ruud 13:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I found what appears to me to be one reliable source covering this language: Camille Paloque-Bergès (2009). Poétique des codes sur le réseau informatique. Archives contemporaines. p. 73. ISBN 978-2-914610-70-4.. Maybe one reliable source is not enough, but it's at least one. Unlike the German book cited above, this French book appears to be a genuine work not just some Books LLC reprint; the publisher Éditions des archives contemporaines is a serious French academic publishing house. SJK (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Added([1]) to the article. Thanks for a great research on it! --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 13:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happen to have any English sources? :)) APS (Full Auto) (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course we do accept sources in other languages, but I agree with what I think APS's real point, that this one strains credulity as satisfying the requirement in WP:GNG that sources offered in support of notability should address the subject in detail. It's impossible to tell from the link you offered whether the source even mentions the subject. Have you ever actually seen this source or any of the passages that discuss this subject? Or was this just something that turned up in a Google search and about which you have no better idea what it says than any of us do? I suspect it's the latter and that's just not enough to persuade me. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I They come and go, come and go. Notable? No! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]