Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FAUST (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FAUST_(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 keep. per improvements by Ruud (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 00:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAUST (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)

FAUST was created at GRAME (Centre National de Creation Musicale). Their papers and talks thus do not constitute significant independent coverage. See discussion for ChucK for comparison. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone accuses me of "deception" again, I know there's a tutorial on it at CCRMA, but it is WP:SPS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your concern about the Smith article? WP:SPS states an exception, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I'm not familiar with the subject but Smith gives credit for the creation of FAUST to "Yann Orlarey et al." so he appears to be independent and secondary and he also appears to be a previously published expert. I think this duplicates the other Smith citation, the one that did get published, meaning this is still just one source (i.e., one person saying something.) But if we hadn't had the other, I personally would have accepted this one. Msnicki (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said at ANI that they don't count for notability, just like my essay. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines are fairly technical and not always intuitive, e.g., the plain language notion that something is notable if it seems notable versus the technical definition here that a subject is notable if and only if reliable independent sources have actually taken note. It's deceptively easy to fall into a trap not unlike trying to represent yourself in court, not realizing there's a whole bunch of statutes, case law and procedures that you're supposed to know. The differences between your essay and the Smith article are (1) you're anonymous here and can't be qualified as an expert in comparing apples to apples, (2) even if you did identify yourself and you were an expert in apple comparisons, we don't permit original research here and (3) Smith is an expert and he's published his material elsewhere. Msnicki (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It needs to be expanded, but I've added references that seem to establish notability. - SudoGhost™ 18:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• http://books.w3k.org/index.html W3K publishing published a grand total of 4 books, all by the same author, Julius Smith, who also wrote the CCRMA tutorial. And coverage in those books is minimal anyway. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Publishing three books has no bearing on anything. Introduction to Digital Filters: With Audio Applications. has a section on Faust that is 16 pages long, hardly minimal. The Computer Music Association reference likewise covers it over the course of 4 pages. Neither of these are a "brief" mention by any stretch of the imagination. - SudoGhost™ 19:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SudoGhost, I'm confused. I found (what I thought was) Introduction to Digital Filters: With Audio Applications online and the section on FAUST sure doesn't look like 16 pages to me. Am I looking at the wrong thing? Msnicki (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that's the same section (it refers to Appendix K, so I don't think so. But this is what I was referring to. It begins at page 417 and goes from there. - SudoGhost™ 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it matters much. Both the book authored by Smith and published by W3K publishing and the tutorial by Smith on his CCRMA home page have practically the same content about FAUST. It's one source for all practical purposes. I don't know if a publisher that has published a grand total of four books (all of which are penned by the same author) is anymore convincing than a self-published pdf. I agree that Smith is independent of the GRAME group though. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SudoGhost, that's very useful. I've fixed the citation in the article and because this is clearly a much stronger published source, I'm changing my position to weak keep, below. FuFoFuEd, the reason this matters is that I had previously understood both the Smith sources to be flawed, albeit differently. One was quite long but never made it to print and the made it to print but appeared incidental. Now we have one that's both in print and substantial. Msnicki (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Weak keep. I just went through and fixed the citations, finding them all online and looking at them. Only one of the sources, the Smith book, is useful to establish notability and even it is quite short. but it's actually a pretty darn good one compared to a lot of the junk that's offered on WP. The Orlarey et al paper is a primary source and not useful. The Lee book is such a brief mention as to make one wonder why anyone would bother citing it all. Right now, I think this subject fails the requirement for significant coverage by independent secondary sources required by WP:GNG. In my view, it still needs another article by an independent source that's really about FAUST to get it over the hurdle. I would still prefer to see a second good source but I think what we now have just barely clears. Msnicki (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We now have two good sources, the Smith book and either of the LAC papers. My WP:!VOTE is that this now satisfies WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is also the (relatively independent) paper "Interfacing Pure Data with Faust" (by Albert Gräf, University of Mainz, the author of Pure (programming language)). There aren't that many (academic) stream programming languages out there and Faust would be among the more notable among them. WP:GNG is mainly intended to get rid of all those toy programming languages written by computer science undergraduates during their compiler construction course. —Ruud 15:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add the citation to the article, please? This could change me from weak keep to keep. Msnicki (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Ruud 18:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've filled in the URLs, moved the citations inline and changed my WP:!VOTE to keep. Msnicki (talk) 18:49, 27 May 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.