Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halide (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 no consensus. Nakon 01:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halide (programming language)

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

Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. ― Padenton|✉ 15:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 2013 PLDI published about this has already attracted 68 citation. This one might be a keep. —Ruud 11:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article clearly needs some expansion and doesn't pass WP:GNG with flying colours. However, there is no promotional wording in the article (admittedly because it is a stub). My gut feeling is that it is notable, but unfortunately no independent reliable sources have been published to fully back this up. The language's GitHub repository has 933 stars and 114 watchers so is used to a certain extent and is actively maintained. As pointed out above there are publications (1 and 2) by MIT about the article. — Jordan Mussi (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep. It has been published in a respectable conference proceedings and introduces some unique concepts. Time will tell whether it is historically influential, but I think it is notable enough to keep for now. Perhaps it could be merged into some other general article on this class of language, but I don't have any immediate thoughts on where. 58.182.250.23 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2015 (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.