Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jekejeke Prolog


 * 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 Speedily deleted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

 * Speedy Delete: I am the author of the article. Although I have originally voted to keep the article, I have changed my mind. I was the only person who has contributed to the article so far. I am convinced that wikipedia is not the right medium to present the product faithfully. Please delete the page immediately. If later the need arises to desribe the product, someone else can easily create a page and write what he thinks is appropriate. This is not a reaction to the attack, but a result of some deliberation over the last 12 months.


 * I have already placed a speedy deletion request on the en-WP article. The de-WP article has already been deletion some minutes ago. Please perform speedy deletion on the en-WP article. The de-WP article has been delete on missing notability criteria. You can also delete the en-WP article on this basis or what ever. Janburse (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: Take a look at the edit history for this AfD. Jan Burse argues disengenuously here (at best), saying that his decision to request speedy delete was the result of "some deliberation over the last 12 months." How can that be? He is on record here as very recently objecting strenuously (and pretty unthinkingly) to all of the reasons given by myself and others for deletion. In reverting this AfD to restore comments of mine that he deleted in violation of WP:TPO, as well as those strenuous objections of his (see also the Talk page for this AfD), I might have hastily dispensed with some substantive comment from him; Hhwever, I feel no onus to repair any such damage to the discussion, given the rate at which Jan Burse inflicted it. Yakushima (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Article has been deleted, thanks Malik Shabazz. Janburse (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I protested the G7 request because it was not made in good faith. Jekejeke Prolog has been restored, minus the speedy delete tag. Yakushima (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My speedy delete request still stands. It is only an opinion of yours that there is some problems with good faith. Discussion on the deletion of the article is untempered preserved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jekejeke_Prolog Sooner or later the article will be deleted. So you anyway have to lookup the discussion somewhere else. But my speed delete request still stands, and if speed delete request is removed I consider this vandalism. Janburse (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Normal Delete

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No apparent RS establishing notability; Google Scholar results are all primary sources drawn from author's own website; Google Books results (except for German-language Wikipedia mirrors) seem to be false positives. Yakushima (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - only sources I could find were its own website and a few discussion groups. No RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Google Scholar does turn up an apparent hit outside Jan Burse's domains; however, googlecache results reveal that this is only another Wikipedia mirror, for the Prolog article, in which Jekejeke Prolog is mentioned only in an infobox listing (contrary to the guidelines for infoboxes). Yakushima (talk) 05:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without third-party sources offering substantial coverage, the subject of the article does not meet our notability standards.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep : Dear All -- The Jekejeke Prolog Runtime Library is free of charge and its aim is to corroborate the ISO Prolog core standard. So anybody in the Prolog community can run it and it has been covered in a few places. For example it is currently quite influential in the ISO Prolog standards process.


 * For example Unicode issues: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/


 * There you find:
 * Multi-Octet Character Set Handling
 * Jekejeke Prolog. Previous Drafts: 2011-03-22.


 * For example setup_call_cleanup/3 issues: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/cleanup


 * There you find:
 * Contributors: Jan Burse (Switzerland).


 * BTW: I am already involved with Prolog since the 80's, with ISO Prolog core standard since the 90's:
 * ISO Prolog: A Summary of the Draft Proposed Standard
 * Michael A. Covington, 1993
 * http://fsl.cs.uiuc.edu/images/9/9c/PrologStandard.pdf


 * There you find in footnote:
 * A rough draft of this appendix was circulated by the Internet: I want to thank Jan Burse, ...


 * And I am still involved:
 * Coding Guidelines for Prolog
 * Michael A. Covington et al., 2011
 * http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.2899v3.pdf


 * There you find me in the Acknowledgement
 * @Yakushima
 * Please remove the deletion note and let me know how to improve the article. :Janburse (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (do not move or delete the above comment)


 * @Yakushima
 * Please move your dead link claims to the talk page since they are not true.
 * Janburse (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (do not move or delete the above comment)


 * Comment - Jan Burse (creator of the Wikipedia article and of the software itself) first cites a dead link as "significant coverage" in RS. I fished the mentioned source out of googlecache. It mentions Jekejeke Prolog once, in passing. Per WP:SIGCOV, mere mentions in RS do not count as significant coverage, and this mention isn't even in RS, it's on someone's personal web pages (specifically, those of Ulrich Neumerkel.) The mention includes links, but only to the work of Jan Burse, which doesn't count as "independent," i.e., it's WP:SELFCITING. In any case, attempts to retrieve the work failed.


 * Mr. Burse then points to a document on the same site about ISO Prolog, pointing out that he's mentioned there. Again, I'm working from dead links, but from what I can tell from the most recent web-archived copy, there's not even a mention (in this non-RS) of a Jan Burse, much less of Jekejeke Prolog.


 * Yes, older versions do not have that mention, only newer versions have this mention. You are correct about this observation. Janburse (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr. Burse then cites his involvement with the ISO standard back in 1993, long before Jekejeke Prolog existed. Even if Mr. Burse were himself notable by Wikipedia standards, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. And such personal notability is clearly not established by being only mentioned in a footnote thanking early readers of a draft standard, where he is obviously listed first of seven only because the author was crediting commenters in surname-alphabetical order. (See p.1)


 * Essentially, what we have here is an argument for notability by reference to authority, by someone claiming to be that authority, while citing evidence for this supposed personal authority that ranges between flimsy and (apparently) non-existent. Worse, this self-established authority stands to financially benefit from Jekejeke Prolog: Jan Burse is an officer of the company making the product, which puts his creation of (and any contributions to) Jekejeke Prolog out on the thin ice clearly delineated by WP:NOPAY.


 * Comment Anyone attempting to contribute to a discussion of deletion of an article should be familiar with at least the rough outlines of the general notability guideline WP:GNG, and should have some sense of what arguments to avoid (WP:ATA) in deletion discussions. Jan Burse is welcome to rejoin this discussion after he has done so. Yakushima (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed a comment of mine and several subsequent comments from Jan Burse, to the Talk page of this AfD. None of the comments from Jan Burse do anything to allay concerns over his WP:COI violations, nor do they establish notability per WP:GNG for Jekejeke Prolog Anyone interested in joining such a discussion should pursue it there. Yakushima (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed yet more comments of Jan Burse's to the Talk page for this AfD discussion; nothing he wrote shows any evidence of any better understanding of WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:COI. Those interested in trying to educate him should continue the conversation on the Talk page. Yakushima (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:COI-violator Jan Burse belittles a statement I made as only an "allegation" after he'd already determined it had a basis, and (far worse) after he some anonymous IP-only editor removed his own comment proving that he had discovered it had a basis.. The only way I can WP:AGF after this? Assume that he's suffering from amnesia. In which case, that's just another reason he shouldn't be in this AfD discussion. At this point, given both his obtuseness about policy and his attempt to impugn another contributor to this discussion, I think it would make sense to ban him from this discussion for disruptive editing. Yakushima (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed my comment by myself. But I am not always aware whether I am logged in into Wikipedia or not, so it can happen that it looks anonymous. Janburse (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You've just confirmed that (a) you weren't suffering from amnesia, and (b) you used the word "allegations" to imply that I was lying. Yakushima (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin - Jan Burse has extensively tampered with the discussion. As of this comment of mine, I have reverted a great deal of edits he made that deleted a number of comments, mine included. (I haven't bothered to add back in the comments he added in the process.) In so doing, he is also disguising the fact that he voted Keep originally, and that he has a WP:COI for this article. Yakushima (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Jan Burse just deleted the comment I made above, so he's continuing to try to make it look as if nobody ever had a problem with his attempted defense of his article. Yakushima (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2012 (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.