Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elm (programming 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elm (programming language)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chris-martin (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are no secondary sources as references; the reference list consists only of links to Elm documentation, with the exception of two which are the Redux.js documentation and Vue.js documentation. Doing a google on Elm did not bring about any notable references. Even though the language has a passing mention in Sitepoint which is not a reputable reference nothing suggests that this is any more notable than, say, PureScript. The language is reasonably popular, but popularity isn't the same thing as nontrivial coverage in several reliable sources, which Wikipedia requires. Chris-martin (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Enough new secondary sources have been presented in this discussion to convince me. I think we should apply the Template:Primary sources template and make sure some of these better references make their way into the article. Chris-martin (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's this upcoming book, and Czaplicki's dissertation has been cited a bit. The most relevant citations look like [1] and [2] and [3]. Finally, I think [4] and [5] decisively establish significant coverage in reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's Pivotal Labs talking about their use of Elm. Here's another from NoRedInk. Elm, while relatively new, is gaining popularity and Wikipedia should keep the article and even expand on it. Bytemanpacifist (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 February 2018 (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.