Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Declarative 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. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 17:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Simple Declarative Language

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability through extensive coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. A Google Scholar search for 'sdl "simple declarative language"' returns about a dozen hits, but most of these seem to be for other languages of the same name, and those that are for this particular SDL merely cite it rather than discuss it in detail. Psychonaut (talk) 13:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the other Talk page (I really don't understand how these weird "discussion" pages on Wikipedia are supposed to work), SDL can hardly be considered non-notable considering that it's used by such high-profile companies/projects as Oracle, Bank of America, JTest Framework, and Swing. Remember that buzz (and especially searching exclusively in "Scholar" circles for buzz) is not the same thing as notability. Nitrode (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles on software packages on the basis of their buzz and popularity, nor on whether or not large companies use them; all that matters is establishing notability, as we define it, through evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources. If you are aware of such sources for this software, please list them here or add them to the article.  We don't maintain articles which can't be sourced in this manner. Psychonaut (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I was unable to find any secondary sources for this topic. There are two articles on SDL at TechHui, but these are blogs by an author associated with the company that sponsors this data serialization format. There is a mention at O'Reiily, but this was just a short paragraph and not in depth. There are several language bindings/libraries for the format for Ruby, .Net and Java/Swing, but these are all sponsored by the company that sponsors this data format. That SDL exists and that the format is as the article claims is verifiable in the primary sources, but the topic does not meet notability standards either for general notability WP:GNG or software notability WP:NSOFT. SDL is worth a mention at Serialization, per WP:PRESERVE. But unless secondary sources are found, the article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete There really is no solid information out there for SDL; the only thing you can find is mostly buzz. I was only able to find a few (3 or 4) books specifically on the subject and not just referenced as part of a known programming language (C++, .NET, etc.). I am with Mark on this one, this does not meet notability standards to remain. --Karverstudio (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, did you say you were able to find three or four books specifically on SDL? If so, then it should easily pass our notability requirements.  Could you list the books here or in the article? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will happily change my recommendation if there are such sources. We need to be a little careful, however, because SDL is an overloaded acronym. There is a much more popular SDL in the form of Simple DirectMedia Layer and there are books written on this, e.g., the list at the SDL wiki. But I haven't seen any books for the simple declarative language. --Mark viking (talk) 21:10, 2 April 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.