Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XL (programming language) (second 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XL (programming language)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previously nominated with concensus to an article which was already AfD'ed and then merged to create *this* article, which sort of seems like a bad AfD closure. This language is not a notable computer science effort or product. Fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG. Marked for notability for more than two years, only one single reference. Mikeblas (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: King University seem to think that the programming language is notable.SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is shallow, de rigueur coverage; it's a glossary of languages with minimal entries. WP:GNG reminds us that we need significant coverage from multiple sources in order to establish notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Found a research paper ^[1] that has received considerable citations and a couple sites like ycombinator and IT History Society that suggests there was at-least some academic interest in it. However, it might be better to have a condensed and brief article. Wikishagnik (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the links you offer are 404. Was there a typo in ... both? ycombinator is just a forum, so I don't think it's WP:RS. I find this link over at the ITHistory site, but it's shallow, de regeur coverage and I don't think the three sentences it contains establish notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether credible sources exist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a prominent programming language --Devokewater 17:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you reach that conclusion? Are you able to share the evidence that you've found? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2021 (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.

^ Hemmerling, Gerhard. "The rule-based language XL and the modelling environment GroIMP illustrated with simulated tree competition". Functional Plant Biology: 9, 10 – via researchgate.

[1] Hemmerling, Gerhard. "The rule-based language XL and the modelling environment GroIMP illustrated with simulated tree competition". Functional Plant Biology: 9, 10 – via researchgate.

[1]