Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frink


 * 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. Almost none of the 'keep' arguments were based on Wikipedia policy and thus hold no weight. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Frink

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article describes a lightweight programming language that has been under development since 2001. The two reliable sources are a workshop presentation in 2004 and a Linux Format Magazine "Hot Pick" in 2008. Rest of the ghits are to blogs and software download sites. Interesting project, but nowhere close to the amount of coverage required by WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete Found a couple reliable sources, but 'significant coverage' is lacking. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable enough for me.  It has an active user base and fills an otherwise unfilled niche.  Brian (talk)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete, unfortunately. It is a well-structured article. In addition to the sources in the article, there was a presentation at the Emerging Languages Camp 2010 and Frink has a number of entries at Rosetta Code and even a Perl module, but I don't think any of these serve as in-depth, independent, reliable sources counting toward notability. There is no prejudice toward recreation if reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Frink inspired my Clojure library Frinj https://github.com/martintrojer/frinj/ and Scala library Frins https://github.com/martintrojer/frins/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martintrojer (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)  — Martintrojer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep While it is indeed a rarely used language, I think its article should be kept; even if there is no prejudice to recreation, the barrier is much higher than adding sources to an existing article, especially one that is, as Mark pointed out, well-structured and has at least some sources. The language has been used by the winning team of DEF CON's Crash and Compile contest a couple of times and users of it ranked highly on Project Euler for quite a while. I have to admit that I'm somewhat biased because I've used the language a couple of times and really like it, but I think I'd argue the same for any decently designed relatively young programming language, despite WP:NSOFT. Jwiechers (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Frink the Language has been around since 2001, it is actively and periodically maintained, there is a port for even the most ancient mobile OSs (such as Symbian System 8), and Frink contains innovative features such as an implementation of interval arithmetic (with units of measure). It is not open source, though and therefore there is, and there will always be, a small user community. — 139.17.114.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:16, 11 September 2013‎ (UTC).
 * Interval arithmetic was innovative when Pascal-XSC was written for the Zilog Z80, which is why multiple books were written about it.   Frink's implementation may be even better, but it's not encyclopedic until reliable sources become available. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Frink inspired me to create an online unit database and calculator, Halculon http://www.updike.org/halculon/ . As others mentioned, as unit-based or physical-based programming languages go, where is Frink's equal? There are plenty of other, less useful obscure programming languages on wikipedia. What purpose does deletion serve? And how notable can niche programming languages really be? PureJadeKid (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I do IT support for structural engineers and this language will save someone's life some day. I think that innocent-until-proven-guilty should prevail in this instance.  My username is only coincidental. FrinkLabs (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This programming language is outstanding. I chose to teach it as part of my Programming Languages class at Indiana University Southeast: http://homepages.ius.edu/jfdoyle/c311/syllabusc311spring2011.htm This language was used to win the programming contest at Def Con not once but twice! I regularly use the web interface for Frink to do unit conversions.  JD (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)  — Purple Horseshoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Some of the people who came to this page seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia articles get deleted when people pass a negative moral judgement on the subject of the article. This is not the case. Wikipedia has standards for articles and this article - irrespective of the merits of what it describes - does not meet Wikipedia's article standards. It should be deleted for now. Someone who cares about the subject of the article can read Wikipedia's guidelines and write a new article in compliance with those guidelines at any time, if in fact that is possible. The referenced sources being cited do not meet Wikipedia reliable sources criteria so other sources must be found. Right now there are no good sources identified.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - notability criteria is significant coverage in more than one reliable sources. The nom has cited two sources. ~KvnG 23:05, 28 September 2013 (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.