Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureScript


 * 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. I can't find any indication that PureScript was actually accepted for GSOC at this time. Aside from this, the sources provided do not meet WP:GNG. Nakon 07:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

PureScript

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. PureScript is quite notable, almost comparable to Elm (programming language).— wing  gundam  16:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * can you provide any sources establishing its notability per WP:GNG? Or improve the article? I don't feel strongly either way. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  16:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel strongly, you shouldn't have nominated it for deletion! Your unthoughtful deletionist agenda is clear as day. --IO Device (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I may have seen this mentioned once or twice on the Haskell mailing list, which doesn't really say much by itself. I'd say this is not anywhere near as notable as Elm. The GitHub repository does have a rather large number of stargazers, so I'd like to investigate at least a little more. Could only find some self-published sources so far. —Ruud 12:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought only German Wikipedia is so crazy about deletions... :-(. PureScript is accepted as a Google Summer of Code Project (AFAIK), has been presented on several international conferences (Strange Loop, flatMap, ...?) and is a very practible language. The last can't be sad about all other languages haveing a Wikipedia article --Thkoch2001 (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment We are a commercial user of PureScript and employ 3 full-time PureScript engineers. I don't think any company in the world employs 3 full-time Elm engineers. -- John A. De Goes, CTO SlamData — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:8700:72F:341C:7C2:99B3:9A0F (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, counting three self-published sources without any 3rd party reference as self-promotional spam. "Maybe seen on a mailing list" is not the same as notable, and yes, dewiki manages to be crazier than enwiki wrt deletions. But an article should still be obviously no hoax here, ignoring the Principality of Sealand and similar grandfathered cruft. GSoC would be better than "sourceforge"/"github", please add the reference if you find it. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of the third-party sourcing needed for WP:GNG. All the hits I found for the subject's name on Google scholar appeared to be unrelated, about a trademarked process for DNA and RNA extraction in biology. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Searching for PureScript programming in GScholar netted a few third party papers and theses that mentioned PureScript, but don't go into depth. If there are published conference papers about this language, I cannot find them. There is a third party YouTube conference presentation at Strange Loop about the language that could be an RS. there is also an InfoQ interview with the language creator that is coverage by a third party source, but is mostly primary. With a language created in 2013, this topic seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for for multiple in-depth reliable sources to develop about the language. If one accepts the video presentation as an RS, PureScript might warrant a mention in the list of languages at JavaScript along with a redirect. But there is not sufficient reliable sourcing to support a standalone article per WP:GNG. No prejudice to re-creation if mutiple in-depth reliable sources develop over time. --Mark viking (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:TOOSOON. I couldn't find anything more than Mark already found and that's too marginal to pass WP:GNG (in particular, I believe InfoQ/Stange Loop work by submission instead of invitation and have a fairly low bar for acceptance). —Ruud 12:42, 8 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.