Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core 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 and redirect to C++. J04n(talk page) 16:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Core language

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:DICDEF: the "core language" is the core part of a language. What is part of a language's core depends on the context and is always defined ad hoc. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 20:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nom appears to be on a streak to rid Wikipedia of that well-known scourge, too much information.  After nom prod'ed this article, I added a second source to the one already cited.  Since the nomination, I've added two more.  We generally accept that notability has been established once two good sources have been found.  I think we're clearly past that.  I urge nom to concede the error and withdraw the nomination.  Msnicki (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You've just proven my point. None of these sources defines "core language" as a technical term, except in ad hoc ways. I agree that "core language" is a common compound noun in computing, but it does not denote a single, well-defined concept. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Q VVERTYVS  (hm?) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Dictionary definition at best, neologism at worst. —Ruud 12:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * None of the provided sources seem to be treating it as a technical term, it just looks like a (differently-defined) combination of words that multiple authors happened to settle on to help them focus or split up a programming book. Never mind notability, outside of this Wikipedia article this doesn't even seem to be a thing. Every popular combination of words isn't a valid article topic. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to C++ where it is mentioned and informally defined. Core language does seem to be used as a technical term by the C++ standards folk, see for instance C++ and C++11. In C++, the core language is the part of the standard not involving the standard library. Other uses seem to be more informal, where Core X means the essential or important fundamentals of language X. I've only found the term formally defined for C++--indeed, of the five articles that link to this article, four are C++ articles. I suggest redirecting to the C++ article; the standard library section informally defines core language in the first sentence. --Mark viking (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 15:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as dictdef. Normally, I would be looking for an WP:ATD, but in this case, I disagree with  about the redirect.  If this was a term specific to C++, the redirect would make sense, but it's really not language-specific at all.   -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete AND redirect perhaps as there's not much of an article yet but there's no urgent need of deleting. SwisterTwister   talk  03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * DABify Right now, the article is a WP:DICTDEF, however in practice the term "core language" can refer to several things. It can refer to a programming language and its run-time support without the standard libraries, or it can refer to the syntax and semantics of a programming language with Syntactic sugar compiled away (i.e. anything that is not "sugar" is "core"), and that's not including minor meanings (e.g. the Glasgow Haskell Compiler immediate representation). De Guerre (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete For many things (not just programming languages) it at time makes sense to distinguish between "core" and "non-core". But what is "core" to a language is usually not strictly defined (with occasional exceptions such as C++), and can be a matter of opinion or purposes. While the concept exists, I don't think it is useful for an article to exist talking about this concept in a cross-language sense. I don't think there is enough WP:RS on this topic to actually make an article, because the topic is rather trivial. SJK (talk) 08:12, 17 December 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.