Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenetic (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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Frenetic (programming language)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks evidence of notability. Created inappropriately for WP:POINT Glaucus (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Fails WP:NOTE --169.237.10.137 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'm not privy to the business of the harassment, but I can see some distinctly odd editing, and an article that's about something with no indication of notability shown. And indeed stated so in its creation, which lends credence to the allegation of WP:POINT, unless I'm missing something. As to the language, I couldn't say. I could write in BASIC, but could make COBOL sit up and beg. (The good old days when silica chunks were set upright in the ground...) I can't even work out what this is supposed to be for. I can see that it's not referenced and from (and possibly including) its creation it's been a problem. I could be wrong (which proves I don't program any more...). Peridon (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep following work by Cybercobra. I still feel it is understandable by someone who knows what it is to start with, but that's not a deletion ground. Peridon (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just tweaked the formatting and added the infobox based on info already in the article. I didn't add anything substantive. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Harassment? WP:PAPER rst (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in edit summary at the article's history. Peridon (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Creation and nomination both WP:POINTy. But anyway, given that the subject is a programming language, I'm inclined to forgo the WP:GNG. Since the language has a published conference paper, I recommend Keep. --Cyber cobra (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't have any exemption from the general notability guideline for individual models and designs of tools used in other trades, so why for those used by computer programmers? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The GNG doesn't always work well with software (see e.g. the similar window manager deletion controversy); programming languages are a type of software. Generally, the most important issue is the need to prevent spam / utter-trivia articles; requiring a nontrivial user base or publication in a solid journal seems sufficient to avoid this. I wouldn't oppose a merge, it's just that I don't see an obvious recipient candidate article. --Cyber cobra (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your argument still doesn't go beyond special pleading. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * i dont think the analogy really works, a programming language is not just another model or design of tool like a spanner, anymore than french is just another model or design of latin. a programming language is just that, a language. -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep i agree with Cybercobra -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no good reason to exempt programming languages from the general notability guideline. There are hundreds, and probably thousands of programming languages that are invented, named, and mentioned once or twice. If they don't have substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Unless the Voellmy–Hudak paper has substantial content – I don't have access to it – this one needs to go. People who are interested in programming languages really like this content, but it should be transwikied to a big Compendium of Programming Languages on Wikibooks, or a programming languages wiki that isn't burdened by Wikipedia's standards for notability or verifiability. --Pnm (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ...burdened by Wikipedia's standards... That's very well put, although it probably means different things to you than to me. rst (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. That ... "programming language" ? even got no any description on off site and added here by the same person who wanted to remove from wiki some really good PLs like Nemerle etc, the Christopher Monsanto. So just read the reasons to delete This language from :Articles_for_deletion/Nemerle. The only different is that Nemerle is notable and this odd job is NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.242.245.41 (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For info, Christopher Monsanto did not create the Frenetic page. rst (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who knows ) he is most "notable" of it's authors. Maybe he nominated pages for deletion to post "this" odd job. That is my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.242.245.41 (talk) 06:21, 22 February 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.