Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obol (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   delete. Lack of reliable, independent sources. Nakon 07:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Obol (programming language)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment http://obol.sourceforge.net/ lists some publications at the bottom, including this Dr. Dobbs article. Project seems to be dead. Not sure if its worth keeping or merging. Have to look into it further. —Ruud 11:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found a paragraph on this in Middleware for Communications (p36). It looks like it may be notable, but I'm not sure yet. The Dr. Dobb's article listed above is by someone at the University of Tromsø, so I assume it's not independent. (Looks like this is Dr. Dobb's normal practice.) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I also found this thesis which appears to be entirely about Obol given the English abstract. However, it seems to be a master's thesis rather than a PhD thesis, and so not counted as WP:RS, although I'd be happy to be corrected about that if anyone knows better. I found quite a few papers written by the Obol authors, but nothing else. I would be willing to change to keep if anyone can find another good source, however. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, stub without references (one thesis shown above won't be good enough). –Be..anyone (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a little tricky to look this up in Google scholar, because it's overshadowed by a biological-ontology language with the same name, and by mis-scans and misspellings of COBOL, SNOBOL, etc. But I'm only seeing single-digit citations for this subject itself (e.g. 5 citations for "Reflective Middleware and Security: OOPP meets Obol" and 3 for "Security and middleware", some of which are self-citations). I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I got pretty good results with searches like and  - but no reliable, independent sources other than Middleware for Communications that I've linked above. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:05, 5 April 2015 (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.