Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dependent ML


 * 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. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Dependent ML

 * – ( View AfD View log )

6 years old and no independent references. Notability tag removed. No claim of notability. Doesn't appear to have been used to build any notable systems. Numerous google hits seem to trace back to only a handful of computer science departments. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - obvious self-promotion, single-sourced article, and obsolete too. Not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article was created by Thorsten Altenkirch, who works in a different research group than Hongwei Xi, the author of DML, nor have they ever co-authored papers together, while working in the same general area of reserach. I fail to see how this is "obvious self-promotion"? Also, obsolescence is not a reason for deletion (or do you suggest we delete Telegraph as well?) —Ruud 13:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – per above; another that might've qualified for a speedy. JFHJr (㊟) 08:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This language is quite well known in the PLT community, being a prime example of a language supporting a limited form of dependent types. I'll try to track down a few independent citations that mention this language. —Ruud 13:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm quite happy to be convinced by evidence - all I meant by 'obsolete' was that it looked like a flash-in-the-pan wild academic idea (of no substance) that has long gone away. I am well aware that 'Notability is not temporary' - once properly notable, always notable, I agree. Are you adding the citations? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have to choose a few appropriate ones, but this Google Scholar query should give a very decent sample of independent articles to select from. —Ruud 14:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable. It might not have been used to "build any notable systems" but it is used for educational purposes. YumOooze (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources / references for this? In my nomination I mentioned a handful of computer science departments which appear to use it, but that's mainly for the smaller, more advanced, cources. I've found no indication of it being used widely in large-class education. Also searching for it on cheat-sites didn't get useful hits. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cheat-sites"? Why does it have to be used in "large-class education" to be notable? —Ruud 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely it doesn't (I think Stuart was just hunting in different likely places for references...), but the article does need some citations to prove notability. I suspect you're the person best placed to add them, if you can bear to do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The "citations" surely exists (see link above). But I don't see a good reason to put any the article without them being used to attribute any facts or opinions. Notability can be established right here. —Ruud 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The chapter on dependent types in Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages discusses DML (pp. 74 - 82). I've added this as further reading material. —Ruud 10:52, 21 November 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.