Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oz (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 Keep. I have withdrawn my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Oz (programming language)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or, in the case of the benchmark source, fail even to mention the subject. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. Thank you both for your efforts. I agree these are sufficient sources. Kind regards. Msnicki (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;I was able to find these additional reliable sources:
 * Discusses how the CC, Oz and AKL languages can be used for constraint programming.
 * Only discussed in a single paragraph, but as this is a survey article nothing else got much more than that, either. Cited 1495 times per google scholar.
 * This is a half-step away from WP:PRIMARY as it's LNCS, and it's not independent, but it has been cited 616 times per google scholar. Given this combined with the two citations above, I think there's a good-but-not-great case for notability.  I will admit, though, that notability might be easier to demonstrate if the article was moved to Oz (programming model and language).
 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a half-step away from WP:PRIMARY as it's LNCS, and it's not independent, but it has been cited 616 times per google scholar. Given this combined with the two citations above, I think there's a good-but-not-great case for notability.  I will admit, though, that notability might be easier to demonstrate if the article was moved to Oz (programming model and language).
 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep  In particular the seminal Programming with Constraints: An Introduction by Marriott and Stuckey and the Handbook of Constraint Programming by Rossi et al. —Ruud 15:39, 3 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.