Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boa language

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boa language

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

Declined WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all either WP:PRIMARY (1, 2), mere conference announcements of presentations by the authors (3, 4) or fail to mention this language at all (5). Googling turns up nothing useful, which is not surprising given that the language is only a few months old. It's possible this language may become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a promising domain specific language for mining code repositories. While there are a number solid primary references, including three peer reviewed papers, the only secondary references found were inclusion of Boa in a list of mini-languages and a discussion on Usenet; both these references are unreliable. This looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has passed for news or review articles, etc., to be written discussing the subject. When reliable secondary references become available, article recreation would be reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with Mark viking: WP:TOOSOON. -- BenTels (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep This looks too much like bias against DSLs in general. Of course they're only of niche interest, that's rather the point of them. However from the sources presented even so far, I'm happy that this meets our standards as a topic with sufficient sourcing to support notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sourcing do you rely on, Andy? Every one of them cited that even mentions this language is WP:PRIMARY. Msnicki (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

+ Delete - As things stand, it is pie in the sky. Best to wait and see how this develops.--Zananiri (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2013 (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.