Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma-0 (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. Nobody but the nominator thinks it should be deleted, but the "keep" opinions are mostly vague references to WP:GHITS or unspecified sources, and therefore not exactly compelling either. Sandstein 05:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0

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

No significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, failing the GNG. The sources all are from the language's creators. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Book shows ample results. Lectures on Petri nets: advances in Petri nets - Wolfgang Reisig, Grzegorz Rozenberg, Correct system design: recent insights and advances -Bernhard Steffen, E.-R. Olderog, Logic for programming, artificial intelligence, and reasoning: 9th, Matthias Baaz, Andreĭ Voronkov, and others. Language is notable enough to be covered in a lot of different books. Dream Focus 04:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually look into those books you listed, you can see that either the chapters are written by the languages creators, or the writers refer to the language when referencing the work they did with the creators. Not independent, fails GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Googled for "Alma-0" AND "programming" minus the names of all of the creators. There are plenty of results talking about the programming language, without mentioning any of the names of the creators. So their names aren't in the credits as contributors. [1] Dream Focus 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging article for Rescue to find more sources. Dream Focus 04:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets millions of results on Google. AFD is not cleanup. Article has already survived 2 AfDs in the last two months so perhaps a procedural close is in order. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first closed because of an off-site canvassing that forced the nominator to leave Wikipedia. The second closed with two keep !votes, one which was incorrectly procedural and the other which only listed non-independent citations. ~~While I'm totally fine if this ends in a keep decision,~~ the circumstances of the past two AfDs should not be a reason to speedily close it.Given my further analysis of Dream Focus' sources, I'm no longer at all fine with this being kept--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrading to regular keep. Always sad to hear of editors being driven away by off-site canvassing, it once happened even to a leading ARS member. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—I'm having a difficult time trying to find secondary, independent sources that would satisfy WP:GNG for this article. However, I do think it is a topic worthy of support, which once again indicates to me that WP:GNG is insufficient.—RJH (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—I found a pair of reliable secondary sources that were independent of the original developers. Notable.—RJH (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you must be familiar with how to check the article history.—RJH (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I see the sources you added, but would you mind telling us the extent of the coverage on Alma-0 in them? Based on the sentences they're used to cite, it could very well be notability affirming coverage, but it also looks like it could easily be a one sentence or two mention that would not qualify as significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the sources, the coverage certainly seems limited. The first, for example, seems to only mention it in one paragraph, while the second does in two, and neither as a main focus.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While we seem to have quite a few editors participating here, I would note that no real valid keep !vote has been given yet. There is no sort of inherent notability for programming languages, so for this to stay it must pass the bare minimum standards established by the GNG. So far it has not done so (while Dream Focus mentioned sources, a quick search easily confirms that those books have chapters written by the language's creators or the authors wrote journals articles with the language's creators on the language and helped develop the language. These cannot be considered independent. Feyd Huxtable's argument really doesn't hold water, GHITS alone are not enough.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over 2000 results. Adding in "programming language" to weed out most of the bad results [2] reduces it to 36 books. I doubt all of them were written by the creators. Dream Focus 15:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's great that you doubt it. Now how about you actually say which one provides significant coverage while being reliable and independent?--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. All independent, and you can click any of them at random to read through and see significant coverage. Everyone else but you seems convinced of the language's notability already. Dream Focus 05:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to tell you this before. Look at the top of the page. See the names of the people who wrote those chapters? Look familiar? They're the language creators.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated those search results. There are results without the last name of any of the creators. Google Advance search for "Alma-0" and "programming" without the words "Krzysztof" "Bezem" "Brunekree" "Partington" "Schaerf". Dream Focus 07:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But look at the books you listed, their names are still there. They wrote those chapters.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link. Fixed it now. [3] Dream Focus 08:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now let's use the first that comes up there as an example. Go to the section of the book on Alma-0, on page 94. See the top of the page? That chapter is written by Apt and Schaerf. Evidently google doesn't filter out names by the entire book. It's tricky, but we need to be careful.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:25, 20 April 2011 (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.