Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Prolog standards compliance (2nd 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 userfy. Moved to User:ParkerJones2007/Comparison of Prolog standards compliance (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Prolog standards compliance

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

This bizarre article seems to be a compendium of what Wikipedia is not: an indiscriminate list; an instruction manual; excessively technical; not notable; and furthermore, if I am reading it correctly, it is explicitly original research - apparently this is just a reprint of the data and results, in extreme detail, of some research two computer scientists did. A previous Afd (which I can not locate yet) apparently resulted in no consensus, but according to the talk page it was kept on the assumption that it would be improved, which it hasn't been in 2 years. I submit that it is impossible to improve the article and it can't be merged anywhere. Surfer83 (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the editor that nominated this article for deletion; there is no reason to keep this article unless someone somehow quickly establishes reliable sourcing and notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reproduction of a primary source in wiki markup, not an encyclopedia article. I would have said "move to Comparison of Prolog implementations", but there's nothing here worth saving. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, it isn't a reproduction of primary source material. That argument was made and subsequently withdrawn in the last AfD. The tables were created by ParkerJones2007 and do not appear in the ISO standard documents. Moving this to Comparison of Prolog implementations would not have been correct either as this is a comparison of Prolog implementations with regards to ISO/IEC 13211-1. Merging this article with Comparison of Prolog implementations would probably not be a good idea either as it would make for an even larger comparison article and this material is probably best kept separate. --Tothwolf (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy article to a subpage in ParkerJones2007's userspace. The former name of this article was Prolog standards compliance and the past AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prolog standards compliance (no consensus). --Tothwolf (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Way too long and technical, with little value as an encyclopedia article. JIP | Talk 08:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Comparison articles, in particular software comparisons tend to get very long and technical (see Comparison of web browsers and Comparison of e-mail clients) and there is nothing at all wrong with that as long as the information is correct and presented in a form which is adequate for the intended audience. The way in which this article currently presents this material is more geared towards a seasoned Prolog programmer who wants to be able to quickly see how various Prolog implementations compare with each other in regards to ISO/IEC 13211-1 (see [1] and [2]). --Tothwolf (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having had a chance to check my own Prolog books and the standards documents, I see nothing wrong with the content of the article and the comparison tables themselves are fine. The problem I see with this article as it stands is a lack of a proper lead (ie {{Lead too short}}) and basically no introduction to the material for someone unfamiliar with Prolog. This is a cleanup issue and is not a valid reason for deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2009 (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.