Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:HQ9+

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:HQ9+


Esoteric programming language that derives it's notability from being esoteric. Page has been previously discussed (Articles for deletion/HQ9+, DRV, Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages). Since it's indivual AFD, there has been very little activity on the page including movind the page from mainspace, to an individual userspace, to Draftspace. No independent sources to back up the claims of notability. Page has not been edited since Feburary 3rd of 2014 (when moved it from their userspace to draftspace). Hasteur (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why was the article actually deleted? The first AfD was unanimous keep, the group AfD had a majority for keeping this one as well.   It looks like someone just sort of deleted them all and ignored the discussions completely, from what you've shown us here.   It's not surprising that an article like this would attract little activity, it's a simple concept that can be completely described in a paragraph.   Notability seems marginal, but it is well known within some circles, though it's not really been written about in anything serious.  Gigs (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See also the Log history of the original mainspace article. I reaffirm that this doesn't make the GNG threshold (nor any applicable SNG), nor does the programming language really do anything except to be an esoteric language (see also Articles for deletion/HQ9+ (2nd nomination)). Specifically that this content has existed on and off for nearly 10 years in the encyclopedia with minimal (at best) improvements while still being a substandard article indicates to me that it might be worth merging to Esoteric programming language if there were reasonable coverage, but with the lack of independent reliable sources and the previous Deletion discussions being diluted by NOTAVOTE, I'm disinclined to continue providing hosting for this. Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete and salt - I find the number of foreign articles interesting, but crucially, the English community has decided not to have an article on this, so we don't need a draft either. -- N  Y  Kevin   20:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and polish If we have this article in 11 other languages, the obvious is that we need it in English language as well. Besides No independent sources to back up the claims of notability is not an argument to delete a draft, see WP:Drafts – drafts are not subject to article deletion criteria like "no context" or no indication of notability. It's a work in progress and drafts are exactly for it. If you're not happy about the article's quality – you're welcome to contribute. Everyone is welcome... --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk &#124; contribs) 00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is an inclusion criterion. No amount of polishing will make a non-notable subject notable.  The community has already decided that this is not a notable topic worthy of an article.  If it gets moved to mainspace, it will just get G4'd.  Why keep a draft that can never become an article?  -- N  Y  Kevin   05:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see an argument here. The community decision on both DRs on HQ9+ was keep (DR 1, DR 2). Besides the community decision from 2007, consisting of 5 votes isn't itself an argument o automatically delete something. Every time we need to have a consensus, which always can change. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk &#124; contribs) 14:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The community decision on two out of three XfDs was keep (one of which was later overturned at DRV), and the most recent one was delete. If you want to argue this is now notable, fine.  Show us some reliable, independent sources.  And please don't point to that "Deleting a draft" page again.  That is not saying that notability is inapplicable to drafts.  It is saying that you can't use WP:A7 to speedy drafts because they're not articles (yet).  -- N  Y  Kevin   00:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I've said, the result of past discussion cannot prejudge the current one. Google search produces +25400 results on HQ9+. See here:

I found something: --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk &#124; contribs) 12:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * https://esolangs.org/wiki/HQ9+, esolangs.org
 * http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Execute_HQ9%2B, Rosetta Code
 * http://codeforces.com/problemset/problem/133/A, Codeforces
 * http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-hq9+-1334.html, 99 Bottles of Beer
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=Q6y8Ow5NRyEC&lpg=PA46&dq=HQ9%2B&pg=PA46, Philipp Winterberg, Google Books
 * http://cs-wwwarchiv.cs.unibas.ch/lehre/ss07/cs506/_Downloads/hq9+_Praesentation.pdf, University of Basel
 * http://ipsc.ksp.sk/2011/real/problems/h.html, Comenius University
 * http://cliffle.com/esoterica/hq9plus.html, Cliff L. Biffle – original specification
 * http://melikamp.com/features/hq9pm.shtml – HQ9+- spec (text is CC-BY-SA)
 * Going through these:
 * Wikis are not reliable sources. Ignore the first two.
 * The article 99 Bottles of Beer is not about the linked website. It is not clear to me that this website is a reliable source with editorial control.
 * The book may be useful, but it would be nice if we could know the title of the book. It also appears to be a lengthy listing of the same program in many different languages.  Since HQ9+ trivially implements that program, it looks like a passing mention to me.
 * Slides from an academic presentation are better than random websites, but still lack editorial control.
 * The last two once again lack editorial control.
 * So overall, this is pretty thin evidence of notability. I'm going to say this does not (yet) meet the general notability guideline.  -- N  Y  Kevin   02:31, 11 November 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.