Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix (compiler framework)

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix (compiler framework)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This framework does not seem to ever have been particularly notable, and it is no longer available. It is currently the top Wikipedia result for a web search of "phoenix framework", which is undesirable because "Phoenix framework" generally refers to Phoenix (web framework). HeroicDjinni (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done some edge periphery maintenance: run the IAbot do sort some dead links, added a dab hatnote The IAbot, added a shortdesc. Would deleting this article upset any major benefactors ? ... probably not. Phoenix, a name much beloved by computer project namers probably going back to he 1980s and propogated ever since, is actually a nightmare for search as there isn't exactly a desert of search results, more like looking for one tree in a big forest, but seems to be a good few articles on the Google scholar link. Reading between more from the edit summaries (not an RS) it seems possible the results of this project may have made it into compiler instrumentation sensor points ... which maybe of more than a little interest to some however that is not in the article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plain can't tell. As noted above, searching for sources is difficult because the term has been trendy since forever. Current sourcing is 3/4 in-house and 1/4 blog, which doesn't bode well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Microsoft Phoenix (as natural disambiguation). I found 4 independent reliable book/academic sources through Google Books and Google Scholar, which I've added to the article. I obtained these sources with the query microsoft phoenix compiler. — Newslinger talk 23:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Safonov, Vladimir O. (2010). "Microsoft Phoenix, Phoenix-Targeted Tools, and Our Phoenix Projects". Trustworthy Compilers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 239–276. ISBN 9780470593349. Retrieved May 8, 2019.
2. Tairas, Robert; Gray, Jeff (March 10, 2006). "Phoenix-Based Clone Detection Using Suffix Trees" (PDF). Proceedings of the 44th annual Southeast regional conference. Association for Computing Machinery: 679–684. Retrieved May 8, 2019.
3. Safonov, Vladimir; Gratchev, Mikhail; Grigoryev, Dmitry; Maslennikov, Alexander (May 29 – June 1, 2006). "Aspect.NET — aspect-oriented toolkit for Microsoft.NET based on Phoenix and Whidbey" (PDF). .NET Technologies 2006. University of West Bohemia: 19–30. Retrieved May 8, 2019.
4. Ueng, Sain-Zee; Lathara, Melvin; Baghsorkhi, Sara S.; Hwu, Wen-mei W. "CUDA-Lite: Reducing GPU Programming Complexity" (PDF). Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Springer: 1–15. Retrieved May 8, 2019.
  — Newslinger talk 23:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per found sources which also reference the Phoenix Acadamic Program particularly indicating relevance even outside Microsoft.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newslinger's sources. No opinion on the move. MarginalCost (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2019 (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.