Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formula One (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 delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formula One (programming language)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I looked through the Google results, including Google books and Google scholar, and found nothing. Msnicki (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad that this has been around since 1992 and currently does not have any Notability. Phearson (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Constraint logic programming because the language's website says the syntax is based on Trilogy, and Trilogy is mentioned in an article in BYTE called "Constraint logic programming" (Feb 1995). I can't find any evidence of notability for F1, even on its own website. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:R#PLA we should not redirect to an article unless the redirected term is mentioned on the target article in a prominent way. That is not the case now, and merging the content to there may give this WP:UNDUE weight – no other constraint logic PLs are mentioned there. In spite of the positive review in BYTE we also have no article on Trilogy (I haven't read the BYTE review, but I assume this is about the language and system developed by Paul J. Voda). --Lambiam 22:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should have re-read WP:R#PLA. Changed to delete. --Northernhenge (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a long time since I wrote any Trilogy, but this doesn't look much like its syntax. F1 looks like a far more practical approach to a similar problem. So we shouldn't redirect to Trilogy.

However that's not what was suggested - a merge to Constraint logic programming seems entirely appropriate. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~(see below) (although I'd prefer to keep it) No, I can't source it immediately. Like msnicki's other AfD for Qi (programming language), these are articles that illustrate why language designers need to choose googlewhacks for their names, if they're to survive on WP. This is a good article and is illustrative of the general field of Constraint logic programming. Accordingly if we aren't going to keep it for reasons of demonstrated notability, we should at least improve the encyclopedia by merging this useful topic explanation into our general article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree with that provided that you commit to (1) ensuring that the merge actually happens, while (2) including similar attention to other multi-paradigm languages that combine CP and LP, such as Alma-0, ECLiPSe, B-Prolog, CHIP, CLP(R), Oz, and SWI-Prolog (and in fact, to a certain extent, most current Prolog systems), so as to avoid giving undue weight to one, perhaps undeservedly, not very notable language. --Lambiam 13:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep Tagged for AfD in under a day of creation - this simply fails WP:BITE. I'm sure that msnicki will be happy to watch the development of this brand new article, that's if we haven't driven off yet another new wiki editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:SNOW nor WP:BITE seems to support you. With 3 of us !voting to delete and only you in favor of keep, it fails WP:SNOW. And WP:BITE says nothing about keeping new articles just because they were written by new editors, though I concede there's some discussion of this at New page patrol, but this is mostly in the context of speedy deletions, especially of pages lacking context or content. This is an AfD. It doesn't matter who wrote the article or why they did it. Content doesn't matter because that can always be fixed. All that matters here is whether the topic notable. If the sources exist, even if they're not yet cited, it's notable and we keep it. In this case, I don't think the sources exist. But you could prove me wrong with a citation and if you do, I will change my position, as I do routinely when new information is presented. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bite, or no bite, it is a very obscure language probably with 17 users worldwide. Not worth a page. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2012 (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.