Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idris (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. I have withdrawn my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Idris (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats )

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

(削除) Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All the sources offered and all that I could find by Googling are WP:PRIMARY and thus unsuitable. This could be a case where sources may soon become available to establish notability and the article could be resurrected. But Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

Nomination withdrawn. I'm satisfied that the Pragmatic Programmers article cited by 130.226.133.44 meets the requirement for significant independent secondary coverage. Msnicki (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep IDRIS is important enough to have been proposed for inclusion in an undergraduate program, A proposed curriculum for an undergraduate software engineering degree , and Brady's "IDRIS---: systems programming meets full dependent types" has been cited 24 times, such third-party sources include:

• Middelkoop, A. (2012), Inference of Program Properties with Attribute Grammars, Revisited (PDF) In Coq, but also in other dependently typed languages such as Agda [Norell, 2009], Epigram [McBride, 2004], and IDRIS [Brady, 2011], properties of type system can be expressed as types of the inference algorithm. --Bejnar (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

You're kidding. This is what you count as source that would contribute toward the significant coverage required to establish notability? Here's the whole thing: "In Coq, but also in other dependently typed languages such as Agda [Norell, 2009], Epigram [McBride, 2004], and IDRIS [Brady, 2011], properties of type system can be expressed as types of the inference algorithm." The bibliography gives the reference as a 9-page paper by the author of the language. That's it. This doesn't come close. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep A Google search on "Idris programming language" hit 73,600 results (while 31,300 on "Agda programming language" and 39,500 on "Epigram programming language"). The notability of Idris in academia has become significant enough recently. --soimort (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. But I concede that suitable sources establishing notability may appear soon. I just don't think they exist now. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep There's an article in the Pragmatic Programmers online magazine Paul Callaghan (2013), Dependent Types: A New Paradigm? 130.226.133.44 (talk) 10:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. I needed a little time to review it first, but this appears to be a good independent source. I am withdrawing my nomination. Again, thank you. Msnicki (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep Notable. Frequently mentioned in the proceedings of ICFP and POPL and the JPF. —Ruud 14:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:GNG asks the the subject should have received significant coverage, described as, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ..." Can you cite one or two examples out of the mentions you found which you feel satisfy this condition? It's possible I missed a good source, in which case I'm happy to withdraw my nomination. But I kind of need to see it, first, because I couldn't find it. Msnicki (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2013 (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.