Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy (programming language) (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joy_(programming_language)_(2nd_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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joy (programming language)

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

PROD contested with zero reason given (I'm sensing a trend here). No notability established from outside verifiable and substantial coverage. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

All were nominated using the back door deletion process called PROD. It allows a single person to tag the article, and if uncontested for a few days any editor with delete privileges can delete it, without any public review outside of the obscure PROD list. Especially sneaky considering the Keep outcome at the last AFD for some of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles which have been through an AfD are ineligible for PROD-ding. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vector journal article, ACM SIGPLAN Notices article, EuroForth conference paper. All of which were presented at the previous AfD; I agree with User:Cyclopia's comment from that AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Buro Renomination churning of a recent AfD that resulted in SpeedyKeep with six keep !votes and a withdrawal. See also WP:N#cite_note-7. Unscintillating (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be intentionally ignorant please. You and I both know that the other AfDs were biased from outside canvassing, and that the nominator withdrew his nomination and left wikipedia as a result of that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Don't know and don't want to know, if that is why we are here, then I recommend that you withdraw any such WP:POINT nominations and allow some time to pass. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's 0 POINTyness involved here, as explained before.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)*Comment As per my Keep !vote in the previous AfD, this language is also supported by references at Cat. Unscintillating (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge it into concatenative programming language as an example. —Ruud 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Google Scholar lists some (small) number of citations of both of the main Joy papers (Joy: Forth's functional cousin and The JOY of forth), including one from a SIGPLAN workshop. It's not much, but it's something. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Consumed Crustacean, it seems to have a few sufficient references. Also, I agree with Ruud, in that otherwise it should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophus Bie (talk • contribs)

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.