Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kvikkalkul (2nd nomination)


 * 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; good discussion though. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Kvikkalkul
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Programming language based on a Usenet post, article has gone unreferenced for 13 years, couldn't find any reliable sources that mentioned it, does not seem to meet notability criteria. Prior AfD said a book mentioned it in a joke; does not sound like significant coverage. Agyle (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 28.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 12:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: I see absolutely no coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG.  Googling turns up nothing useful.  Truly nothing.  Msnicki (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - a bad usenet joke that isn't notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This is an early esoteric language. It is documented in reliable sources like FOLDOC and The Retrocomputing Museum. Based on a Usenet post in 1994, it has become a minor part of computing folklore, like Intercal. These RS are enough to establish verifiability and some notability, but I am not sure there is enough depth to declare notability according to WP:GNG. The stub itself needs refs, but the prose is fine and seems accurate relative to my knowledge. I am on the fence in terms of a recommendation. If there was a good place to selectively merge, maybe Esoteric programming language, I think that would be the best option. --Mark viking (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark viking, I don't consider either an indicator of notability; they're self-published personal websites, lacking editorial oversight, and FOLDOC seems to be written by a non-expert (see WP:QUESTIONABLE). One of the two "curators" of The Retrocomputing Museum is well-known computing author/activist esr, so TRM could arguably be considered a reliable source, but its coverage of Kvikkalkul is just two sentences, falling short of WP:GNG's requirement for "significant" coverage. Agyle (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Foldoc has been around for nearly three decades; it is the original dictionary/encyclopedia of computer jargon and folklore; it and the jargon file are nearly canon for early computer folklore and culture. Kvikkalkul on the The Retrocomputing Museum has a two-line definition, but the entry is also an active link to an archive containing a manual, grammar, compiler and programming examples. What is your criterion for expert in computer folklore? --Mark viking (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's criterion is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." There are gray areas and areas for interpretation (e.g. how broadly to interpret "relevant field", what constitutes a "reliable third-party publication"). Personally, I also consider the breadth/depth of the work(s), where they were published, and the author's standing within that profession, cutting slack for say a full professor or well-known/influential figure in a field who's published only one paper but in a reputable scholarly journal. Some people are more inclusive, satisfied if an author got one work published on a remotely related topic in any third-party publication.


 * In the case of FOLDOC, I just checked, and Denis Howe is in what's a gray area for me: he had two CS-related papers published in conference proceedings while in graduate school, in 1992 and 1993, on Spineless Tagless G-Machine programming. In general I don't think I'd consider him an "established expert" (in the Wikipedia sense) in computer science (which I'd broadly extend to cover FOLDOC). On the other hand, FOLDOC itself is widely cited. On the third hand, FOLDOC borrowed from other questionable sources, had 2000 contributors, and 150 guest editors, with unclear editorial oversight. On the whole I'd probably not count it toward notability, and treat it very cautiously as an authoritative source about a particular subject...it seems a bit like relying on Wikipedia. :-)


 * Regarding TRM's link to a gzip with other material, I'd only consider esb's work reliable, not third-party materials that he archived or linked to. (I didn't download the file to check). ––Agyle (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2014 (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.