Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma-0 (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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Alma-0
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

(I tried to re-open the last AfD, but I was told to open a new one) This language doesn't meet the general notability guideline. It is an academic language, with only one cited-paper, according to the ACM digital library. Even then, one paper with 15 citations, 3 of them from the author himself, isn't enough to establish notability for an academic project, and it doesn't have any other coverage. Even although it was created in 2004, it appears in no newspapers, no magazines, no books, and it only has one paper that has been cited. Enric Naval (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC) *Keep - as above, shouldn't nominate again so quickly after another AfD. Neutral - withdrawn as per Lambiam below Bienfuxia (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or Procedural SpeedyKeep This article just went through AfD three days ago.  The result was unanimous, with the nominator withdrawing the nomination.  I don't know why the admin changed the result from "SpeedyKeep" to "No consensus".  I think that this nomination fails WP:BURO, including the procedural irregularity of modifying the previous AfD, marked twice in red, "Please do not modify it."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it went through a previous AFD, the nominator withdrew and the AFD was properly closed as "nomination withdrawn. Eric Naval then reopened it 3 days later and added a "delete" !vote so I couldn't have closed it as "nomination withdrawn". Technically you can't do that if there are outstanding delete !votes. Even if the original close stuck, a close of "nomination withdrawn" does not bar a speedy renomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominator of that AfD withdrew after procedural objections, which were the basis of most Keep !votes. Then we had a non-admin closure, followed by a non-admin re-opening, followed by an admin closure explicitly stating that the proper thing to do in cases like this is to renominate. It is a bit strange then to object against this renomination on procedural grounds. --Lambiam 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find any significant sources about it, other than forums, how-tos or promotional stuff. Also, it should be noted that the previous nominator's "withdrawal" was not almost definitely not an endorsement of the article.  The fact that the previous nominator withdrew, and consequently that this is back at AfD, should have no bearing on the discussion whatsoever.  Ravendrop 11:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominator withdrew all his nominations because he got a lot of hate mail and nasty comments on the internet . --Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it started with this reddit mob. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above link is to an off-wiki site, which I decline to read, and of which I have no knowledge. Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete no reliable and verifiable sources establishing its notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What? —Ruud 22:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A simple search on CiteSeer revealed several well-cited paper on this language. —Ruud 22:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Vincent Partington (1997). "Implementation of an Imperative Programming Language With Backtracking".
 * Jacob Brunekreef (1998). "Annotated Algebraic Specification of the Syntax and Semantics of the Programming Language Alma-0".
 * Krzysztof R. Apt, Jacob Brunekreef,  Vincent Partington,  Andrea Schaerf (1998). "Alma-0: An Imperative Language that Supports Declarative Programming".
 * Krzysztof R. Apt, Andrea Schaerf (1998). "Programming in Alma-0, or Imperative and Declarative Programming Reconciled".
 * Krzysztof R. Apt, Andrea Schaerf (1998). "Integrating Constraints into an Imperative Programming Language".
 * Krzysztof R. Apt, Andrea Schaerf (1999) . "The Alma Project, or How First-Order Logic Can Help Us in Imperative Programming".
 * Comment Not a single one of those sources are independent though. Each is written by one of the language's developers, and thus are not very helpful in establishing notability as they can all be viewed as promotional.  Ravendrop 23:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, these papers have been cited by others. If you would have bothered to click on the link to the academic search engine I provided, you would also have found several papers, not written by one of the authors, referring to the language. Why do I have to spell this out in such excruciating detail to you? —Ruud 23:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did have a look at those. The problem is of the 20 articles well over half are still written by the developers, and of those that aren't, I can't find one whose main subject is this language.  They all appear to mention it only if passing, but not to dwell on it in depth.  Ravendrop 23:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why impose such draconian inclusion requirements? We need the notability/independent mention requirement to keep out all the, impossible to write verifiable articles about, programming languages invented in high school on an afternoon, but if several well-known researchers found this language interesting enough to mention in their publication, it's interesting enough to mention on Wikipedia. —Ruud 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.