Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jekejeke Prolog

Exchanges copied from Afd for Jekejeke Prolog, concerned mostly with disruptive edits from Jan Burse.

Attempts to educate WP:COI violator on WP:RS, WP:N WP:V issues

 * Jan Burse has rejoined the discussion (see above) apparently without acquainting himself with the relevant guidelines, as I suggested. He claims that the article is not "biased", even when its very existence, in violation of WP:N, WP:V and WP:COI, is itself a product of bias. Jan Burse clearly feels that there should be an article about a relatively obscure implementation of Prolog that he has written, when SICStus Prolog -- a competing product of much earlier vintage, one which is clearly listed in articles that Jan Burse has edited -- is overwhelmingly more notable than Jekejeke Prolog but still lacks an article. If Jan Burse were truly unbiased, concerned (as a Prolog expert) only to give fair treatment to Prolog-family languages, he would see the red link on SICStus Prolog as a glaring omission and attempt to remedy it. But it is a competing product, isn't it? WP:AGF is getting pretty difficult to support. Yakushima (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not responsible for the scope of Wikipedia. There are quite a number of Prolog systems around as you can see from the Prolog Comparisons page. It is rather random whether a Prolog system has a page or not. SICStus Prolog might not, but for example ECLiPSe also has, so I don't see a bias in that. Whether SICStus Prolog is a competitor or not is difficult to judge, for example their interpreter mode is much slower than mine and they don't have a free of charge version as Jekejeke Prolog has with the Runtime Library. You can also include the Jekejeke Prolog Runtime Library in your applications and distribute it free of charge. Janburse (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The question here isn't whether Prolog Comparisons page is biased, it's whether you are. And you clearly are: you're the author of Jekejeke Prolog and you have a company based on it. With no WP:RS for the Jekejeke article, it exists only because of your bias: you wrote it, you're the main maintainer of it. If you were relatively unbiased about Prolog implementations, only concerned to improve coverage of them, you'd obvioiusly prioritize work on Wikipedia Prolog material according to relative notability. SICStus is head and shoulders above Jekejeke in that respect. Yakushima (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Whether SICStus Prolog is a competitor or not is difficult to judge...." -- but then you go on to brag about how Jekejeke has better ISO compliance? Apparently, you find it easy to judge -- and in your favor. Yakushima (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you have mixed up two things. You can assume there are two things in a Prolog system, ISO functionality and non-ISO functionality very specific to the Prolog system. On the market non-ISO functionality also counts. SICStus Prolog has a lot of additional non-ISO functionality and Jekejeke Prolog as well. Both Prolog systems have different customers. Since the non-ISO functionality is the great differentiator, also many Prolog systems don't pay much attention to ISO compability since it doesn't buy them something. So its easy to beat older Prolog systems in ISO compatibility, since they have a lot of legacy customers and they don't change their systems. But it is also easy to beat newer Prolog systems, since sadly they don't pay much attention to the ISO standard. Janburse (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW: SICStus Prolog is an extremely influential and noted Prolog system. The name is a word play, since it is successor to Quintus Prolog. It is historical and in the present very important. If this article has been deleted than this is a big error. Rather deleting the article it would make more sense edit it and fix it, if bias is seen inside the content. But concerning the ISO Standard it is rather a pain dealing with the many products. I have run my compliance test suite against SICStus Prolog and a couple of other Prolog systems, but I did not publish the results since it might harm the vendors and cause stir. But on the other hand the test suite is there with the full source, so anybody can use it. Janburse (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hint: @Yakushima I really suggest that you once read the Jekejeke_Prolog article. Calling the Prolog system "relatively obscure implementation" is quite funny, since it is mostly ISO compliant. When I were running the compliance test suite agains Jekejeke Prolog and other Prolog systems only GNU Prolog ranked higher in compliance than Jekejeke Prolog. But I have no intention to publish an according report, because of the above mentioned problems. But anybody can run the tests on his own. Janburse (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read the article several times. That's not the problem here, Jan. The problem is your apparent failure to read WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS -- and WP:COI, while you're at it. A product's conformance with a standard does confer general notability. Only significant discussion in independent, reliable sources can do that. If "anybody can run the tests on his own", so what? It's whether they were independent, and wrote the results up for publication in an independent WP:RS-compliant reliable source. How many times do you need to be told this? Yakushima (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI-violating AfD contributor slightly impugning another AfD contributor

 * Comment (from WP:COI contributor Jan Burse): :@Yakushima Concerning your dead link allegations. Did you finally check whether you can reach Ulrichs documents. I have no problem at all currently. Janburse (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Allegations"?! Implying that I'm just making up claims? You know yourself that the server was unavailable at times -- you said so in this edit. Which you then removed. You're not supposed to altering your history of contributions to AfD discussions, and especially in any way that impugns the integrity of an editor. In any case, the page that's now reachable doesn't substantiate that there's independent reliable sourcing for this article, only that you get mentioned -- and mere mentions don't count. Yakushima (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Yakushima (do not move or delete this part of my comment)
 * Please move your dead link allegations to the talk page, since they are not true. Janburse (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My implicit "allegations" had a basis in fact, as you yourself discovered and commented on, here: They were true at the time I made them. If you'd like to restore the comment you made about not being able to reach the site yourself, I can overstrike and comment. If you do not, I see no need to cooperate with you. Yakushima (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You were already able to move a substantial part of your claims to the talk page. Namely you moved everything about SICStus to the talk page. Then you should also be able fix your text concerning dead links and move unnecessary allegations to the talk page. Otherwise to be consistent with your history keeping policy you would need also to keep the SICStus stuff on the main page. But I like your act that you have moved the SICStus stuff away, and I guess you could do a similar act concerning the dead links. Dead link would imply I have posted a 404 link or some such, which I didn't. Janburse (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Applicability of WP:NOPAY

 * Comment (from WP:COI contributor Jan Burse): @Yakushima I don't see how WP:NOPAY can apply since the Jekejeke Prolog Runtime Library is free of charge. The ISO test cases are also available in full source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janburse (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From your own website: "The sales system at www.jekejeke.ch has been enhanced by a forum...." Making open-source code as part of a business model is nothing new. As you seem to be well aware, after all, since you've apparently based an entire company on that idea. Yakushima (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There would be only an issue if the article were biased. But the article is very short, does contain verifiable facts and no marketing adjectives. Could you let me know where you see a problematic phrase in the article? Janburse (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You cite no policy or guideline in support of the claim that WP:NOPAY only applies to articles with "problematic" phrasing. The argument for deletion is based on a lack of reliable sources independent (of you.) Notability means that others have taken note of it, to a degree beyond mere mentions. This, nobody has demonstrated. Yakushima (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NOPAY Is mention under "What is a conflict of interest?", so I guess it has to do with the content of the article and not with notability. COI arise in connection with neutrality and reliability. And not with notability. Notability I cannot influence, but when I am writing an article I can influence for neutrality and reliability. Janburse (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)