Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stropping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1(talk) 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stropping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any sources for this. Schuym1(talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If someone can show why it is a notable method. As it is, it is a WP:DICDEF, and likely it would be hard to find reliable sources. You can find examples of it being USED as a term in programming (newsgroups, etc.) but not wp:rs sources. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep After new sources were found (including one that made my eyes bleed) it appears that a KEEP is actually in order. A very difficult subject to source, and a technical one, but that shouldn't prevent it from being included. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a perfectly cromulent term: I have added a reference to its use in Algol68. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be very, very easy to change my !vote if I could actually see a wp:rs reference that was a weblink and established the notability of the term. Not that weblink references are better, but this *is* a term used in programming, and holy cow, you would *think* there would be a source available on the internet that could easily establish the notability of the term, if it is notable. It would truly embiggen the article. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google for "Algol68 stropping" gives two hits on Wikipedia (!): Algol 68 and ALGOL 68G, then you could try here, here, here, or, under "stropping convention" here, here, here or here. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I did, and had before. The problem is that all those mention stropping incidentally, which is what I found when I searched. (hense my weak modifier) I didn't find any "the importance of proper stropping" type articles, or anything that talks about stropping as a primary subject matter. That (or two) is kinda what is needed to help establish it is notable by itself. I don't think the concerns is whether or not stropping exists, it is about whether or not there is enough potential for it to be more than a dictionary definition. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of those references go into descriptions of the several different kinds of stropping conventions (for one particular language). The Hansen and Boom article is about stropping. The article describes different conventions for other languages, presumably they can be sourced too. That all seems to me to add up to much more than a mere dictionary definition. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, that made me want to stab an eye out with a shrimp fork, PFD of an image, and is not searchable. Somehow I missed that one reference, but yes, you are totally correct, and that would change my opinion. I added to the article, and will tag a bit more. The article needs work, but seems perfectly legit, in my eye
s. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG, that made me want to stab an eye out with a shrimp fork, PFD of an image, and is not searchable. Somehow I missed that one reference, but yes, you are totally correct, and that would change my opinion. I added to the article, and will tag a bit more. The article needs work, but seems perfectly legit, in my eye
- Several of those references go into descriptions of the several different kinds of stropping conventions (for one particular language). The Hansen and Boom article is about stropping. The article describes different conventions for other languages, presumably they can be sourced too. That all seems to me to add up to much more than a mere dictionary definition. Richard Pinch (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I did, and had before. The problem is that all those mention stropping incidentally, which is what I found when I searched. (hense my weak modifier) I didn't find any "the importance of proper stropping" type articles, or anything that talks about stropping as a primary subject matter. That (or two) is kinda what is needed to help establish it is notable by itself. I don't think the concerns is whether or not stropping exists, it is about whether or not there is enough potential for it to be more than a dictionary definition. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google for "Algol68 stropping" gives two hits on Wikipedia (!): Algol 68 and ALGOL 68G, then you could try here, here, here, or, under "stropping convention" here, here, here or here. Richard Pinch (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Undead Warrior (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect to Computer languages Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 4 October 2008 (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.