Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flix (programming language)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Possibly (talk | contribs) at 20:23, 23 December 2020 (→Flix (programming language): d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Flix (programming language)

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

Flix (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability.

Created by editor with COI. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Flix --Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not voting, but I'm just mentioning some things. COI editors are told to go through AFC and mention their COI (which they did on the article's talk page). I approved the draft because I think that it has some chance of being notable based on where it was developed and who funded it. I also took into account that it could potentially be merged into a related article if it doesn't have independent notability per an AfD. While I do agree that notability is a concern, I don't think the warning tag on the creator's talk page about COI was acceptable. SL93 (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The research behind this language has a good reputation in a subfield, implementation of DATALOG-based languages, whose importance is seeing a surge of recent recognition (cf. Huang, Green & Loo 2011, Datalog and Emerging Applications: An Interactive Tutorial). The article that introduced the language implementation effort has an h-index of 11, respectable for a 4-y.o. language. The article is well-written, with less puffery than is typical for PL articles without a trace of CoI editing. As a general point, I think this AfD is undermining to the AfC process: if an article graduates from the AfC process, a little care putting together the AfD is in order, and to give as the whole deletion rationale "No evidence of notability" is careless when the first paragraph of the article ends "Two notable features of Flix are its type and effect system and its support for first-class Datalog constraints" and the references section contains two peer-reviewed articles whose title mentions that language by name. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I saw 160 edits by JorKadeen in the history of the Flix (programming_language) page. I didn't catch the fact that those were done in userspace and then the history was moved. I have apologized for my error, but let me apologize again: sorry about that.
WP:NSOFT has the following criteria:
  • "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement."
Maybe. Could you please list the reliable sources discuss Flix as being significant in its particular field? The source you cite above ( Datalog and Emerging Applications: An Interactive Tutorial). does not contain the word "Flix". It says "We discuss two active commercial systems, LogicBlox and Semmle", "We also review two important academic systems from the classical age of Datalog research, Coral and LDL++", and "Finally, we highlight the ongoing BOOM project, based on a Datalog dialect called Dedalus" (I believe that this is the BOOM project at [ http://boom.cs.berkeley.edu/ ] not the one at [ https://www.theboomprojectbook.com/ ] that shows up in a Google search.)
  • "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction."
Nope, Flix fails this one.
  • "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews,[2] written by independent authors and published by independent publishers."
Nope.
  • "It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability."
Nope again.
In addition, most of the sources are papers by authors of the language (Magnus Madsen[1]) you tube videos by the same authors or citations to flix.dev.
The last thing I want to do is to step on any AFC toes, but if you are going to claim that we need to "take extra care if an article graduates from the AfC process" then when the page leaves AFC it should clearly show that reliable secondary sources establish notability. I should have looked at the page and seen that it was obviously notable. Instead here I am, asking you for evidence of notability after you cited as evidence an abstract that doesn't mention Flix. I suspect that the full paper either doesn't mention Flix or only mentions it in passing. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have them, please add links for the above sources so that any editor can go there and verify the claim. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: has been discussed on Reddit per the strength of the peer-reviewed sources above and in the article. Bachelor's/Master's theses aren't really significant but there's plenty that is. — Bilorv (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Danish folk have a particular skill in developing programming languages and this shows promise. scope_creepTalk 20:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the way they have gone about this is wrong, and the article in its current state is promotional and inadequately sourced. I counted 18/29 references as being non-independent. JorKadeen above apparently works for them. This is plainly a promotional effort and the article in its current state does not show enough in the way of recognition in good, independent sources. As is often said, please do not make article about yourself; if you are notable, someone else will do it independently. Possibly (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flix_(programming_language)&oldid=995963084"