Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heron programming language/Original phase

Vanity project, nonnotable programming language. Google search for Heron "programming language" yields 915 hits, most of which are for the project website or directories or link lists, as well as many accidental hits (e.g., programs for Heron's formula or computers named "heron"). No evidence that Heron has any programmers other than its creator. Project web site doesn't claim anyone else is using Heron. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re-listed on vfd due to a deadlocked discussion -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 22:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. If Heron someday becomes widely-used, Mr. Diggins or another programmer is welcome to recreate the article.  Until then, the language's lack of notability warrants deletion of this article.  Spectatrix 02:46, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
 * Neutral Delete. Appears to be a real language, and I'm not sure that this language is any worse than many of the other dubious entries in the List of programming languages.  Agreed however that it appears to be new and the author is possibly using Wikipedia for advertising.  It's a toss-up for me, as it's hard to judge whether a programming language is encyclopedic using the same criteria that would be applied for other articles.  Development technologies are just so fleeting. -- Stevietheman 03:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The language is completely open source, and could easily be taken by anyone in the future and developed further if they care to. Open source software is in the public domain and can not be removed, thus negating the argument that Heron may be considered fleeting Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Difficult to tell if it is more that original research. It would not bother me if we keep it, but I can also live without it. --Alexandre 08:53, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may be marginally notable at the moment but mentioning the author looks pretty pov. Cutler 21:26, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. He created his own personal page, too. Ambivalenthysteria 23:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I support deletion of the Christopher Diggins page, I created it because I could. Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep, with pov-cleanup. Still support deletion of Christopher Diggins until such a time as Heron gains notability. Spectatrix 23:56, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)
 * Keep. Borderline, the fact that it seems to be a good article sways me. Andrewa 02:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It doesn't bother you that the author is the sole programmer of this language? Sorry, I have to ask. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. A language can have one primary author and become ubiquitous and used by millions. So can an operating system kernel like a silly penguin-picture vanity project called Linux. Jamesday 04:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed the point. Diggins is the only author of this language -- no problem. He is also, apparently, the only person who ever wrote a program in this language. Until, of course, he gets his pals Skrud and Kriggs to write "Hello, world". Wile E. Heresiarch 11:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You don't know that. Heck I don't even know that. I know there has been 10,000 visitors to http://www.heron-language.com so I think a few people may have written Heron programs by now. My response was not dignified and regrettable Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Programming languages tend not to be ephemeral, and sometime in the distant future someone could run across some Heron code and wonder about the language. The article does need to be expanded, however. Withdrawn. I vote to delete. Jeeves 03:57, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rebuttal, from originator (who is thus ineligible to vote). I am, of course, using Wikipedia for self serving purposes, as are many other contributors. That should not change the outcome of these proceedings. The votes expressed up to this point have not indicated any special consideration of programming language design, theory or history, nor has any one seem to have done any particular background research on Heron itself. Voting upon a programming language entry in this manner is a joke, and I refuse to participate further. In protest of people forcing their behaviour models on me I also continue to refuse to create an account. Christopher Diggins 66.130.152.126 04:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) I have decided to participate properly by creating a user account and behaving myself Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * [Moved (along w/ following note), annotated, vote struck thru by Jerzy(t) 05:58, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)]
 * Christopher, if you have evidence of encyclopedic relevance to present to us, please do. I am a seasoned programmer, and I had never heard of Heron until this delete debate.  We want to be open-minded here. Further, refusing to open an account as a "protest" smacks as an ego issue in here; that is, that declaration only hurts your cause. Also, don't waste our time with sock puppets--we know who new users are. -- Stevietheman 13:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not create sock puppets as Wile has demonstrated. I resent the implication. I suggested to my friends to join and express an opinion. The votes should be based on the value of the entry rather than my personal actions or my disagreeable character, or my large ego. - Christopher Diggins 66.130.167.160 00:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I will assume no sock puppets. However, like it or not, ego is seen as an indicator in these proceedings--it often makes it clear the intentions of the article author.  But that all said, I'd be happy to entertain any information you can provide that supports the encyclopedic revelance of the article above what's already been said by others.  I'd be happy to change my vote from 'neutral' to 'keep' if it becomes warranted. -- Stevietheman 15:16, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The case for the entry: Heron is more deserving of an entry as a programming language than some of the fake and joke languages listed on the esoteric programming language page. The entry is less self-serving than an entry in list of software companies, as well as the various commercial products references that are scattered throughout the programming language section pages. There have been many discussions of Heron on usenet . There is mention of Heron in Dr. Dobbs Journal . Heron has been discussed on several mailing lists, and I have given two seminars on it so far, with another one scheduled in October. I think the strongest argument for keeping Heron would be that it is open source, and contains some novel approaches to programming language design which could be useful to programmers and researchers looking for information on programming languages. The Heron documentation is a useful reference for people doing comparative studies of programming languages, and interested in alternative approaches to various programming paradigms such as AOP, OOP, DbC etc. Christopher Diggins 22:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Christopher, let me try to clarify what kind of evidence (speaking for myself here) could make Heron notable. Has Heron been adopted for a commercial project? Has some professor made his/her students do their classwork in Heron? Did someone write their dissertation about implementing some feature in Heron? That kind of active interest would boost the notability -- how far, well, depends. In closing, let me note that I have my own vanity project which I think is wonderful, and, yes, I've given seminars and written papers; it will get a WP article only when it gets enough attention from others (at present, not anywhere close, sadly). Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This set of rules along, would invalidate a large number of existing programming languages listed on Wikipedia. Should we delete those as well? Christopher Diggins 01:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Christopher, nothing you presented is convincing. The only two ideas in your presentation worth looking at were the first two footnote links.  The first link to a Google newsgroup search shows the top 9 articles coming from you, then the second link points to an article by you.  I agree with Wile that while the work you're doing is possibly very valuable, it doesn't hold encyclopedic relevance at this time.  Like Wile, I'm also pursuing what I think are great ideas and have a website to promote them; however, we realize our ideas aren't ready for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Further, the first argument you made about other articles less deserving is like the universally unsound argument "others are breaking the rules, so why can't I?".  At any rate, I'm still looking forward to seeing some evidence of encyclopedic relevance. I've decided. -- Stevietheman 15:47, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The so-called unsound argument I use about "breaking the rules", was brought up because precedent establishes new rules. If Heron is no less appropriate than many other listed programming languages, then should I start voting for their deletion? This would in my opinion be doing a disservice to the users of wikipedia. Christopher Diggins 01:59, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote, as I know nothing and care little about programming languages (provided they continue to function properly). Moved this from below the footer section. Rhymeless 04:52, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm a programmer, I'd previously heard of it, it's been presented at at least one symposium in the field and it's unsurprising that those who don't follow programming language developments don't know what this or something like C# are and why they are of interest. It might fall into insignificance five years from now, in which case it'll be deletable then. Jamesday 04:44, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my vote from Neutral to Delete based on this argument. Do a poll of programmers and I guarantee you nobody will have heard of Heron, while a vast majority will have heard of C#.  One symposium does not make an idea significant enough for inclusion here. -- Stevietheman 16:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, on advice of several specialists abv: the language deserves it, even though the contributor deserves to be spanked & sent home: "Don't. Pro. Test. At. Wiki. Pedia." --Jerzy(t) 05:58, 2004 Jul 12 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I accept that the VfD pages are not the correct forum for this kind of debate or protest. Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps a premature addition to Wikipedia, but I've seen the language and presentations on it, and it's existance is more warranted than it's removal. Kriggs 07:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * First edit by User:66.131.119.242. Presumably the same Kriggs who wrote, As a favour to my friend Christopher Diggins, please do me this favour in checking out Heron, a programming language from which I expect great things in the future. This is his main venture at the moment, and he is in need of more exposure. What are friends for, anyway? Wile E. Heresiarch 11:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that necessarily disqualifies me, but if so, fine. But if I am his friend in the first place, it is because I found out about him through his language at a presentation he gave at Concordia university. And whether I am eligible to vote or not, my statement is, as far as I am allowed to claim, honest. Kriggs 20:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Heron has some interesting features despite the fact that it is still in development, and deserves a closer look. DrSkrud 07:48, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * First edit by User:DrSkrud. Presumably this is whoever hosts a blog which advertises Heron . Wile E. Heresiarch 11:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Naturally, because I'm interested in the language. You'll notice my blog also has various links to Wikipedia. DrSkrud 14:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Albeit minority language, beginning to come across the odd reference to it in various places. Sjc 08:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: The aggressive spamming of the VfD page, the stated goal of the article being "get some exposure," the fact that it's original research, all tell me that this is an attempt to turn Wikipedia into a platform for exposure. This is an ethical violation, IMO, and not much different from someone who repeatedly put up entry after entry for Coke C2 or something: delete this article and start afresh when the language establishes itself and no longer "needs some exposure." Geogre 18:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not spam the VfD pages. I encouraged my friends to vote, see democracy -- Christopher Diggins 66.130.167.160 00:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to place ads for your programming language. You'll know your work is encyclopedic when somebody besides you feels the need to write about your accomplishments. Until then, you're as unencyclopedic as the rest of us shmucks. :) --Fastfission 00:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that I am unencyclopedic, and I support deletion of my personal page. I feel as the authour and leading authourity on Heron though I am the most qualified individual to write an entry on Heron. Christopher Diggins 21:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think this would go against Wikipedia's policy of rejecting original research. We are only concerned with collecting consensus knowledge in an objective manner. While you may be the "most qualified" person to write about your language, that's what your web site is for. When the language you have created becomes significant in the computer programming world, an article will be written about it. We've thrown out many other articles about the projects of individuals which haven't yet become high-profile enough to warrant inclusion. I agree with Geogre's sentiments above. Jeeves 09:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep . The language serves as a useful implementation for Object_oriented_programming, Generic_programming, Meta_programming, Aspect_oriented_programming and Design_by_contract.  These are all topics that are covered by the Wikipedia for which reference implementations can be difficult to come by.  With regards to spamming the VfD page, if a post on the language weblog can generate enough response to constitute the description 'spam,' doesn't this contradict the idea that there is not enough interest in the language?  Disclaimer: I am not a 'friend' of Christopher_Diggins and I do not know him in any other capacity other than as the creator of Heron. Ged Byrne
 * Sole contribution by Ged Byrne. As with Kriggs and DrSkrud, this vote shows an interest in Heron but not in Wikipedia. Lest you think I'm picking on you, single-issue voters get this treatment on a regular basis. Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 03:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that the vote above (signed, not forged, by Ged) was not struck thru by Wile, but by the same IP who a few minutes later, made a(forged) sig (just below this entry) as Ged. I.e., the IP (whom i assume to be Ged being careless about signing on, and later forging his own sig to compensate, rather than Chris impersonating or inventing Ged) was responsive to the thrust of Wile's "sole contribution" complaint.  I earlier read him as saying "so what?" to Wile's complaint; i think that i and probably others misjudged him to that extent. --Jerzy(t) 14:48, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
 * No problems, everybody was a sole contributor once. I am, however, interested in Wikipedia and have made minor anonymous edits from time to time.  True, these have all been in support of languages that interest me, such as adding Eiffel to the list of OO languages, but surely the whole idea of Wiki is that people can contribute to issues they are interested in.  Isn't it this democratic process that separates Wikipedia from the traditional encyclopedias? Ged Byrne '''User:193.129.160.2
 * I have struck thru and replaced the preceding signature, per the history diffs output, which indicates that formally it amounts to a signature forged by an IP. While i see no reason to infer effort to deceive, i think ignoring it would undercut the integrity of our records. --Jerzy(t) 08:15, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  There are countless programming languages with only one author, so far I have not seen any indication that this deserves mention above the hundreds of others. --Starx 19:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)