Julia (programming language) – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 15:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Julia (programming language) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) contested deletion by [user:Anih] on talk:Julia (programming_language) BO \| Talk 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion and speedy close There was a clear consensus for the deletion of the article, and the DRV nominator doesn't give any reason, why this should be revised. (A deletion after an AfD can't be contested on the talk page.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment 1: The consensus was too narrow - and the case should be relisted - since there are at least two additional voices now to keep. Comment 2: If a user does not know about DRV his voice should still be heard per Wikipedia:NOTABUREAUCRACY. Comment 3: Wikipedia:NOTACRYSTALBALL was not relevant in the original AfD proposal - also it was not applyied normatively. Compare and contrast with many articles about future events (e.g. Casino openings; Movie Releases) which are never censured for violation of this precept. Request 1: Your signature's length is in excess of the permitted length WP:SIGN— please be so kind and reduce it prior to responding here again. FYI it seems suggestive of violence and aggression - WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND BO \| Talk 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] (C1) No the consensus was not too narrow. Most AfD discussions don't get more input than this. (Also AfD's don't need to have x !votes to be valid.) (C2) If a user doesn't know how DRV works, than xe should read WP:DRV (C3) Maybe linking to Wikipedia:NOTACRYSTALBALL wasn't fortunate, but in these instance it means speculation, that the topic of the article will someday becomes notable. (R1) No the signature is under the 255 character limit. (Otherwise it wouldn't fit in my preferences.) The second part of your request is simply stupid. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 21:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, my reference to WP:CRYSTALBALL in the nomination was (and I'm astonished this wasn't obvious) referred to speculation about future sources coming into existence. We don't keep articles because we think the subjects might become notable someday. Perhaps I should have cited WP:TOOSOON. Also, if anyone is unhappy with another editor's signature, an AfD is probably not the place to pursue it. Msnicki (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment: The now-deleted Talk page held the following content which is, I believe, the basis for this nomination. Why was this page deleted? It is a perfectly valid description of the programming language. UPDATED: Found this in the Deletion Logs: "Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources provided are all WP:PRIMARY. Googling failed to turn any better sources. This may become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)" It is a programming language, the only reliable source is primary, i.e. the people who make it. As an example if Microsoft says that Windows has some feature X, should that not appear on Wikipedia because Microsoft is the primary and only source? It is a new programming language and there is not a great wealth of information on it on the web, although Googling it will show many discussion about it on mail-lists etc. As a non-affiliated individual with the project, I can confirm he description on the deleted page of its features is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anih (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Without commenting on the merits of the original deletion, the speedy-deletion of the Talk page was clearly in error. Yes, the talk page was technically "a page dependent on a deleted page". But the Talk page is exactly where we tell users to discuss the merits of a potential new article or to ask questions like the above. New users should not be sanctioned merely because they do not know our archane rules about where and how to contest a deletion. In particular, I note that the Talk page was summarily deleted without even an attempt to explain things on the new user's Talk page. Don't bite the newcomers! Rossami (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Okay, but before it was deleted, I did post an answer on that talk page suggesting that anyone who objected to the outcome at AfD could request WP:Userfication or WP:Deletion review. It seems likely someone read my answer and that's why we're here. Msnicki (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, you did and very civilly. Unfortunately, another user speedy-deleted the talk page barely an hour later - far too soon for any reasonable expectation that the original editor would have found your comment. Rossami (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Request 2: Please resotre the talk page as well. according to WP:AGF I suggest that it was deleted despite accidently despite its CSD having been contested. BO \| Talk 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] There really was a consensus that this material was not notable. I think that although there was nothing wrong with BWilkins' close in this instance, the debate itself was defective because per WP:ATD the participants should have considered alternatives to deletion. Nobody did. (For example, a redirect to List of object-oriented programming languages is one obvious alternative that should have been considered.) It's not strictly necessary to relist the debate in order to consider the alternatives—we could do that here at DRV—but I would prefer a relist in this case.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] The guidelines discourage adding redlinks to lists such as List of object-oriented programming languages unless an article is likely. From WP:LSC, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." This is why I think the best alternative is WP:Userfication until better sources can be found (or come into existence.) Msnicki (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] In context, that's an example of a common selection criterion. It's not a Thou Shalt Not. In this case it obviously wouldn't apply anyway: the entry would be plain text since there's no purpose in a redlink. (That list consists only of wikilinks at the moment but there's no reason not to add plain text.)—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Okay, it's easy to fix that to make it a list of WP:N languages, just like List of programming languages, exactly as I imagine most of us who've contributed to that page have intended. (Note the numerous previous deletions of entries corresponding to deleted articles.) Msnicki (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't think this conversation counts as "considering alternatives to deletion"; I know next to nothing about programming languages and Msnicki isn't coming up with alternatives but trying to exclude them. My relist stands.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why is it my job to come up with alternatives? You're the one who thinks that's a good idea. I'm arguing that I have thought about it and I don't think there are any good alternatives beyond WP:Userfication; why isn't that alternative good enough? Msnicki (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The AfD outcome was properly supported by the discussion and a clear consensus. No reliable independent secondary sources establishing notability were found. As observed by pbp, the only arguments in favor of keeping the page (and by only a single editor) were "a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:CRYSTAL." Msnicki (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. For the reasons outlined by Misnicki. The consensus was clear and based on appropriate policy-based reasons. Ubelowme (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] talk page temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] comment Possibly every AfD nomination where it might be a reasonable option ought to say whether merge or redirect is suitable, and if not, say why it is not. And then every close should consider it. It would be difficult to make a rule on it, because more than half the time it is not a reasonable option, In some cases, I sometimes try to do this. But there is another way to look at it, that a redirect can still be made unless the closer says otherwise (the difference is that such a redirect won't have the article history). And no AfD can affect content of another article, at least not unless it's discussed in the close. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've posted ((subst:DRVNote\|Julia (programming language))) notices to the talk pages of all the editors who contributed to the AfD and to the original author of the article. Msnicki (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse: 'cuz of what that PBP guy said about it at the AfD p b p 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] comment Someone left me a message. I had forgotten about this. It made me realize I made the right decision not to be Wiki-active any more. All this talk about an obscure, practically-dead, quite useless, waste of time language... way to go. Within Wikiproject computing 80% of articles are pure junk and Julia is worse than the rest, and yet all this talk, talk about a deletion. The user contesting is probably doing so out of love for Julia not due to a deep knowledge of computer science, and there may well be COI (who knows) but we will AGF on it. Wikiproject computing is never going to work with current policies that eat time and produce nothing. I am so glad I gave up on it.... History2007 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- because consensus at the AfD was clear, and because no reason for undeleting it have been presented. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The AfD debate reached the ~~unanimous~~ conclusion that this language is not notable (yet). We have a long history of not merging or redirecting non-notable programming language into e.g. List of ''x'' programming languages (for good reasons). Is anyone seriously disputing this deletion or are you all just arguing for the sake of arguing? —Ruud 06:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment - FYI - if you look again at the AfD discussion you will notice that it was not unanimous. BO \| Talk 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Indeed. It was less of a hyperbole than "the consensus being too narrow", though. —Ruud 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - close accurately reflected consensus. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - the idea that for any deletion discussion someone has to drag up alternatives to deletion no matter how poor, or put some boilerplate "I considered alternatives but found none" is mindless bureaucracy at it's best. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I'm not seeing sources needed to meet WP:N. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Nothing new; if someone were to present sources that would be another matter. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Julia (programming language) – "Delete" closure endorsed. – Sandstein 15:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

contested deletion by [user:Anih] on talk:Julia (programming_language) BO | Talk 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and speedy close There was a clear consensus for the deletion of the article, and the DRV nominator doesn't give any reason, why this should be revised. (A deletion after an AfD can't be contested on the talk page.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1: The consensus was too narrow - and the case should be relisted - since there are at least two additional voices now to keep.

Comment 2: If a user does not know about DRV his voice should still be heard per Wikipedia:NOTABUREAUCRACY.

Comment 3: Wikipedia:NOTACRYSTALBALL was not relevant in the original AfD proposal - also it was not applyied normatively. Compare and contrast with many articles about future events (e.g. Casino openings; Movie Releases) which are never censured for violation of this precept.

Request 1: Your signature's length is in excess of the permitted length WP:SIGN— please be so kind and reduce it prior to responding here again. FYI it seems suggestive of violence and aggression - WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND BO | Talk 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(C1) No the consensus was not too narrow. Most AfD discussions don't get more input than this. (Also AfD's don't need to have x !votes to be valid.)

(C2) If a user doesn't know how DRV works, than xe should read WP:DRV

(C3) Maybe linking to Wikipedia:NOTACRYSTALBALL wasn't fortunate, but in these instance it means speculation, that the topic of the article will someday becomes notable.

(R1) No the signature is under the 255 character limit. (Otherwise it wouldn't fit in my preferences.) The second part of your request is simply stupid. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 21:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my reference to WP:CRYSTALBALL in the nomination was (and I'm astonished this wasn't obvious) referred to speculation about future sources coming into existence. We don't keep articles because we think the subjects might become notable someday. Perhaps I should have cited WP:TOOSOON. Also, if anyone is unhappy with another editor's signature, an AfD is probably not the place to pursue it. Msnicki (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The now-deleted Talk page held the following content which is, I believe, the basis for this nomination.
Why was this page deleted? It is a perfectly valid description of the programming language.
UPDATED: Found this in the Deletion Logs:
"Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources provided are all WP:PRIMARY. Googling failed to turn any better sources. This may become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)"
It is a programming language, the only reliable source is primary, i.e. the people who make it. As an example if Microsoft says that Windows has some feature X, should that not appear on Wikipedia because Microsoft is the primary and only source?
It is a new programming language and there is not a great wealth of information on it on the web, although Googling it will show many discussion about it on mail-lists etc. As a non-affiliated individual with the project, I can confirm he description on the deleted page of its features is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anih (talk • contribs) 12:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the merits of the original deletion, the speedy-deletion of the Talk page was clearly in error. Yes, the talk page was technically "a page dependent on a deleted page". But the Talk page is exactly where we tell users to discuss the merits of a potential new article or to ask questions like the above. New users should not be sanctioned merely because they do not know our archane rules about where and how to contest a deletion. In particular, I note that the Talk page was summarily deleted without even an attempt to explain things on the new user's Talk page. Don't bite the newcomers! Rossami (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but before it was deleted, I did post an answer on that talk page suggesting that anyone who objected to the outcome at AfD could request WP:Userfication or WP:Deletion review. It seems likely someone read my answer and that's why we're here. Msnicki (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did and very civilly. Unfortunately, another user speedy-deleted the talk page barely an hour later - far too soon for any reasonable expectation that the original editor would have found your comment. Rossami (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request 2: Please resotre the talk page as well. according to WP:AGF I suggest that it was deleted despite accidently despite its CSD having been contested. BO | Talk 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There really was a consensus that this material was not notable. I think that although there was nothing wrong with BWilkins' close in this instance, the debate itself was defective because per WP:ATD the participants should have considered alternatives to deletion. Nobody did. (For example, a redirect to List of object-oriented programming languages is one obvious alternative that should have been considered.) It's not strictly necessary to relist the debate in order to consider the alternatives—we could do that here at DRV—but I would prefer a relist in this case.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines discourage adding redlinks to lists such as List of object-oriented programming languages unless an article is likely. From WP:LSC, "Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Most of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." This is why I think the best alternative is WP:Userfication until better sources can be found (or come into existence.) Msnicki (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In context, that's an example of a common selection criterion. It's not a Thou Shalt Not. In this case it obviously wouldn't apply anyway: the entry would be plain text since there's no purpose in a redlink. (That list consists only of wikilinks at the moment but there's no reason not to add plain text.)—S Marshall T/C 20:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's easy to fix that to make it a list of WP:N languages, just like List of programming languages, exactly as I imagine most of us who've contributed to that page have intended. (Note the numerous previous deletions of entries corresponding to deleted articles.) Msnicki (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this conversation counts as "considering alternatives to deletion"; I know next to nothing about programming languages and Msnicki isn't coming up with alternatives but trying to exclude them. My relist stands.—S Marshall T/C 21:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it my job to come up with alternatives? You're the one who thinks that's a good idea. I'm arguing that I have thought about it and I don't think there are any good alternatives beyond WP:Userfication; why isn't that alternative good enough? Msnicki (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The AfD outcome was properly supported by the discussion and a clear consensus. No reliable independent secondary sources establishing notability were found. As observed by pbp, the only arguments in favor of keeping the page (and by only a single editor) were "a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:CRYSTAL." Msnicki (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. For the reasons outlined by Misnicki. The consensus was clear and based on appropriate policy-based reasons. Ubelowme (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
talk page temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Possibly every AfD nomination where it might be a reasonable option ought to say whether merge or redirect is suitable, and if not, say why it is not. And then every close should consider it. It would be difficult to make a rule on it, because more than half the time it is not a reasonable option, In some cases, I sometimes try to do this. But there is another way to look at it, that a redirect can still be made unless the closer says otherwise (the difference is that such a redirect won't have the article history). And no AfD can affect content of another article, at least not unless it's discussed in the close. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted ((subst:DRVNote|Julia (programming language))) notices to the talk pages of all the editors who contributed to the AfD and to the original author of the article. Msnicki (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: 'cuz of what that PBP guy said about it at the AfD p b p 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment Someone left me a message. I had forgotten about this. It made me realize I made the right decision not to be Wiki-active any more. All this talk about an obscure, practically-dead, quite useless, waste of time language... way to go. Within Wikiproject computing 80% of articles are pure junk and Julia is worse than the rest, and yet all this talk, talk about a deletion. The user contesting is probably doing so out of love for Julia not due to a deep knowledge of computer science, and there may well be COI (who knows) but we will AGF on it. Wikiproject computing is never going to work with current policies that eat time and produce nothing. I am so glad I gave up on it.... History2007 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- because consensus at the AfD was clear, and because no reason for undeleting it have been presented. Reyk _YO! 02:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD debate reached the ~~unanimous~~ conclusion that this language is not notable (yet). We have a long history of not merging or redirecting non-notable programming language into e.g. List of ''x'' programming languages (for good reasons). Is anyone seriously disputing this deletion or are you all just arguing for the sake of arguing? —Ruud 06:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI - if you look again at the AfD discussion you will notice that it was not unanimous. BO | Talk 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It was less of a hyperbole than "the consensus being too narrow", though. —Ruud 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - close accurately reflected consensus. Rlendog (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the idea that for any deletion discussion someone has to drag up alternatives to deletion no matter how poor, or put some boilerplate "I considered alternatives but found none" is mindless bureaucracy at it's best. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm not seeing sources needed to meet WP:N. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nothing new; if someone were to present sources that would be another matter. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.