Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V language (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.  kur  ykh   22:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

V language
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, prototype project for a programming language created by a non-notable programmer whose article was recently deleted. Article has 11 inline references, 9 of them are completely trivial or self-publications, and 2 of them (#6 and #7) are the same link to a "Times of India" article, that talks about this project. Damiens .rf 19:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on the source called "Linux For You"? - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Linux For You is probably this Indian Linux magazine. I was able to find their page for the September 2008 issue, but I wasn't able to find any mention of V. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 21:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Upon examination, this is strictly speaking not a programming language; it is a macro processor which expands certain fragments of a limited natural language into C code. These fragments, and their expansions, appear to have been specifically selected to make certain example programs compile. Without getting into too many technical details, it would be impossible to use this language for any practical purpose. All claims of its ability to apply AI techniques to suggest algorithms are currently inaccurate, as no such ability exists in the current version. As far as the references go, most appear to be either self-published or irrelevant. The only two of any potential substance are the Linux For You appearance and the Times India article. As noted above, the mention in Linux For You appears to be trivial enough that it isn't mentioned in the online TOC. The Times India article can probably be discounted as well; it contains a number of rather glaring inaccuracies - for example, that the author is unusual in having written a language on his own. Not every news mention is an instant ticket to notability. I wish the developers luck in their endeavor, and look forward to their article's return to Wikipedia - once it has been completed and/or has entered wider usage, and more reliable information is available about it. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The TOI reference is a good single RS, but the limited interactions in the previous RfC and the IP removal of the advert tag with a misleading edit summary concern me. I'm inclined to deletion, but I want to give the article's proponents chances to find another good source. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep - today i recvd an email asking me to give some clarifications reg the article on V.

The statement "strictly speaking not a programming language" is wrong. There are two versions for V - V as language and as application. For application part it is true. So is the case with the online parser Grogammer. But reg the language it is not so.

Now concerning the LFY article. It appeared in September issue. But it comes as a part of my column on Kernel programming Aasisvinayak (talk) 08:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — Aasisvinayak (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * That is to say it was one more self-published mention?


 * Regarding to either or not it's a real programming language, it's not an editorial decision to judge that. We should wait for Mr. Aasisvinayak to publish his first academic papers on peer reviewed journals and follow the coverage by reliable sources, and then write an article supporting anything they say. For now, we only have self-published claims and a vague TOI article about the vagueness of the endeavor. --Damiens .rf 13:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "It's not an editorial decision to judge that" - granted, yes. However, it is a pretty clear sign that the language cannot possibly be notable through its being used in real-world applications (because doing so would be impossible). It also means that academic interest is going to be limited to nonexistent. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - hard to describe this as a language. Is more accurately a useless parsing program that is used by almost no one, and therefore unnotable --T-rex 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep - It looks like a programming language. I looked at the documentation of V as a language. It seems viable. And with regard to the references, I don't find anything wrong. The two magazines and newspaper (toi) quoted in the article are credible . I think T-rex's commend (reg the project) is wrong Sforshyam (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * — Sforshyam (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. The only 3rd party source is a newspaper, and it's not a reliable source in this context. Besides the general idea, the Wikipedia article is mostly vaporware, and so is the newspaper article. I cannot find any discussion in specialized press. It's easy for journalists to get excited about stuff they don't understand. For comparison purposes, look at the article for NimbleX: surely it was covered by the mainstream press in its country of origin, but the Wikipedia article is not based on that coverage (which is only mentioned), but rater on the articles that appeared in the specialized press, because the latter actually involve some critical thinking. No objections to recreating this article when there's some coverage that allows a substantive presentation. Besides, the software is in pre-alpha stage. Right now WP:NOT applies: a single blip in a newspaper does not make a Wikipedia article. VG &#x260E; 18:16, 5 November 2008 (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.