Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bon (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 delete. Davewild (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bon (programming language)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article consists of two factoids from a single source that only contains passing mention of the article's topic. This is all that any one of us has been able to find out about this programming language Bon since 2004. I conclude that the topic is not notable and suggest redirecting to either B (programming language) or Ken Thompson. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 05:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep A very minor language that no-one is advocating for further use. However as it forms part of Ken Thompson's work and thus the predecessor history of C, it's significant in a historical sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's invoking WP:INHERIT. I haven't seen proof of the significance of the language. Ritchie in fact calls it "unrelated" to B and C. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a rather pathetic Summoning Of The Mighty Allcaps, even though such is only to be expected at AfD. An article on Woofles, Ken Thompson's pet dog is INHERITed. A language that formed part of Thompson's corpus of work is notable because of its place in the corpus, not because it's coincidentally linked to Thompson. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is a correct invocation of a guideline. What do we know about this language, other than that Thompson designed it, wrote an unpublished memo about it, and then moved on to other projects? What makes it deserve a Wikipedia article, despite there being no sources to attest to its significance? Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dennis Ritchie reckons it influenced B, which in turn... (you know the rest). Of the two of you, I'm believing him. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's go over Ritchie's "Development of the C Language". Here's what it says: "Its [B's] name most probably represents a contraction of BCPL, though an alternate theory holds that it derives from Bon [Thompson 69], an unrelated language created by Thompson during the Multics days. Bon in turn was named either after his wife Bonnie, or (according to an encyclopedia quotation in its manual), after a religion whose rituals involve the murmuring of magic formulas." That's all Ritchie said about Bon, and the reference [Thompson 69] is to an "undated AT&T Bell Laboratories internal memorandum (ca. 1969)". Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Peter, nice to see that you're not having your usual login troubles for this XfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Talk:C (programming language)/Archive 4 has previous discussion regarding the purported Bon→B→C heritage. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete A lot of languages are created, not only does this one lack demonstration of notability there is not even a claim of notability in it. I would happily reconsider if evidence of significance was provided. Chillum 16:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherited notability doesn't really cut it.  It has to stand on its own without a connection to a famous person or notable topic.  It's already mentioned at the article for B, so there's nothing to merge.  Google Books results look mostly like Wikipedia mirrors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the only things we can say about it are from that one line in Development of the C Language, then it's not independently notable. It might be mentioned in our article on C but does not warrant its own separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Instead of being (famous person)'s pet dog, it is (famous person)'s pet project of the past, but it does not make it any less inherited. If this language did significantly influence C (which in turn blah blah blah) at the point that it becomes historically significant surely there are sources out there that say so; where are they? Tigraan (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2015 (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.