mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alice_(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, in this case Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Alice_.28programming_language.29). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- most of the keep votes below either attack the nominator or refer to sourcing that's actually for a different language/environment. It appears that there is not sufficient reliable sourcing to maintain an article on this topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (programming language)

[edit]
Alice (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure programming language. I can't find any notable sources. Language has had the "notability" tag for over a year. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not even follow the link... did you? What part of Alice PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE did you not read? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, assume good faith. Second, what exactly is your argument? There are two "programming languages" named Alice -- one developed at Saarland University (this article), and one developed at Carnegie Mellon (not this article). Most of the "sources" on your Google Canada search refer to the Carnegie Mellon one (not this article). How about, instead of just giving a Google search, you give *specific* sources? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, a big disclaimer. I am not a computer scientist. I don't really understand quite what it is you're arguing over beyond some sort of notability issue. To that end, though, there does appear to be a specific mention of Alice (the programming language from Saarland Uni) in this book and an entire chapter devoted to it in this one. Does that help at all? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking the nominator isn't going to help this article remain on wikipedia - finding *specific* reliable sources that cover the subject will. Note that these sources don't have to be in English - they can be in French, Russian, Hebrew, whatever. A lot of people here are clearly passionate about the subject. If you love it, find the sources. You'll get to keep a better article. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand the Wikipedia policy nomination for deletion is measure that should be take *after* careful research about language notability. That is the thing that clearly wasn't done here. Even when the "nominator" was pointed to the multiple publications about Alice ML he rejected all of them without investigation. Taking all these thing into account it is pretty difficult to believe in his good faith. As I understand the Wikipedia policy for the "notability" this single publication is enough to be notable: Trends in Functional Programming (volumes 1 & 2) by Greg Michaelson, Phil Trinder and Hans-Wolfgang Loidl (editors volume 1), and Stephen Gilmore (editor volume 2). Intellect Books, Bristol, 2001, 2002, Chapter 6. Alice through the looking glass. It seems pretty reliable to me. Don't you disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to comment on notability as I'm way out of my depth with anything to do with computer science (although I would not have suggested the books I did if I did not believe that they would help establish notability). Regards Christopher, I know a lot of people are upset at him mass AfDing programming languages. However, it really isn't him you have to convince to ensure the article's kept (although if you can persuade him to withdraw his proposal that this should be deleted, fine). The person you really have to convince is the closing admin. Being able to link specific sources, or even better to include those sources as in-line references in the article (and note that you've improved it here so others can comment), is the way to do this. Simply calling "keep" and labelling him a "saboteur" (as VladD2 has done) is an ad hominem attack and not an argument. It won't help your case. "The nominator is a jerk" is not a reason to keep an article (however true or otherwise it might be). If Christopher hasn't done the careful research he should have done before nomination the best way to point that out to everyone is to find the sources and cite them. Sources have turned AfDs around before. This was one where the nominator decided to mass AfD all the individual episodes of an entire TV series for lack of notability. Reviews were found for the individual episode and the discussion closed as "keep". In the case of Alice, the books may be enough to establish notability, I don't know. But you can never have too many sources. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, in my opinion, the "Alice through the looking glass" source is not good enough. Trends in functional programming is an academic workshop, not a book. I don't know why Google Books is picking it up. Trends in functional programming is a third-tier venue for presenting PL research; it isn't even indexed in the ACM digital library, which is arguably the most reliable database for CS related stuff. Because it isn't in the ACM digital library, it is hard to figure out what the citation count is. CiteSeer, a somewhat reliable source, gives the citation count as 12, not counting self-citations. Google Scholar gives 35 citations, but has a tendency to massively over approximate citation counts. For instance, a famous paper in my research area, has 85 citations according to ACMDL, and according to Google Scholar, it has 289.
The other book is about Oz. It mentions Alice on a single page. I don't count a single page mention in a book about an unrelated subject and a ~12 citation third-tier workshop paper as "significant coverage from reliable independent sources". I have nothing against this language, it just simply doesn't have enough coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Uh, "very nice research done": re your link to the "book", "It contains a peer-reviewed selection of the best articles presented at the 2009 Tenth Symposium on Trends in Functional Programming held in Komárno, Slovakia." TFP is a workshop. If some company wants to publish workshop papers as a book, that doesn't change that they are workshop papers. Your ACM link is a pointer to the "book" published by Intellect, not a reference to the actual workshop paper, and therefore we can't get a citation count for just the paper. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is NOT about Carnegie Mellon's Alice. None of your sources are relevant. Since this has happened so many times, let me put that in big letters to warn anyone else contributing to this AfD discussion: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT CARNEGIE MELLON'S ALICE: PLEASE DO NOT LINK SOURCES ABOUT CARNEGIE MELLON'S ALICE! DO NOT LINK SOURCES DISCUSSING AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE THAT'S CARNEGIE MELLON'S ALICE!!! No offense Victor :) Christopher Monsanto (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2011 (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.