330:
promotional tone?). The former would make it immediately clear 1) why the article should be deleted and 2) that you have made a reasonable effort to locate sources (claiming that you were "unable to find any sources" might tell me more about your ability to locate them than about their lack of existence without you telling me where you looked). Not doing so is lazy, not very polite towards your fellow editors and unnecessarily lowers the level of discourse. —
383:
To be clear, even if I didn't write out a thorough explanation, I did look for each of them, and the other editors (including you on occasion) confirmed this. I do not contest that I was mistaken in a few of those, though I am sure the same could be said of any person that has ever nominated an XfD.
371:
would have told you beforehand that that would have been the likely outcome. Instead of dismissing my complaint, I'd hope you'd use it as a reason to improve on your checks before deletion and improving the summarization of your findings. That would save everyone who has to review your nominations
329:
Yes. It's still not clear to me why you couldn't simply have written "I couldn't find any articles other than those written by the language's designer on Google
Scholar, none of which have received any significant amount of citations" instead of invoking a number of irrelevant policies (essay?
349:, and again, I didn't call the article an essay. I don't know why you woke up on the wrong side of the bed, I've never had an issue with you before in an AfD, but I would appreciate it if you didn't take it out on me. Thanks.―
389:
294:
There, I changed my nom from "Unable to find any reliable sources" to "Unable to find any reliable sources not written by the creator." Happy? Can we get back to the AfD now or do you have another pedantic complaint?
234:
The three sentence article is neither an essay, nor promotional in tone. The article cites a paper that has been published at a decent conference, so the fact that the nominator claims they were unable to find
366:
Over the past few weeks you've nominated quite a few articles with rationales not much better than this one. And while many of those articles should and have indeed been deleted, a few were kept and a simple
166:
392:
and it ended as a merge (deleting pretty much all the content in the current article anyways). Which XfD are you specifically talking about? If you're going to accuse me of failing
262:
Is that this paper? "The 2.PAK Language: Goals and
Description, L.F. Melli, Proc IJCAI 1975." The one clearly by the author that obviously fails the 'indepedent' requirement of
119:
431:
451:
160:
474:—I also found the nomination to be an inaccurate description of the article, but as I've only found two papers by the authors and a passing mention in
396:, I would appreciate specifics so I have a fair chance at rebutting them. Though perhaps this is getting to be too much of an irrelevant tangent. ―
216:. Unable to find any reliable sources not written by the creator. All papers seem to have single-digit citation counts on google scholar. ―
126:
17:
341:
Because it was an already-clearly-implied pedantic clarification that I thought editors could figure out easily enough. Also,
494:
530:
614:
388:, when it later went to AfD (I was not the nominator) I voted merge rather than delete. You agreed with me in deleting
40:
181:
148:
490:
92:
87:
96:
483:
202:
79:
610:
559:
541:
36:
142:
574:
174:
393:
368:
240:
138:
591:
515:
404:
357:
320:
303:
274:
224:
57:
342:
213:
209:
83:
595:
578:
545:
519:
498:
463:
443:
408:
378:
361:
336:
324:
307:
289:
278:
253:
228:
61:
475:
459:
439:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
609:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
188:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
566:
263:
198:
75:
67:
570:
486:
205:
374:
332:
285:
249:
587:
509:
479:
398:
351:
314:
297:
268:
218:
53:
455:
435:
154:
113:
533:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
312:
Also, I never said it was an essay. I said NSOFT was an essay, which it is. ―
390:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Join-calculus_(programming_language)
385:
507:
Thanks, will attempt to do better in the future. Corrected above.―
565:
with an unresolved problem tag since
February, 2013, + a red link
603:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
109:
105:
101:
555:, one dead link + one obscure something very far from
247:
because of the nominator's lousy deletion rationale? —
173:
539:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
187:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
617:). No further edits should be made to this page.
432:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
452:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
450:Note: This debate has been included in the
430:Note: This debate has been included in the
449:
429:
239:reliable sources implies they didn't obey
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
476:History of Programming Langauges
478:delete is the correct result.
1:
345:isn't only about promotional
634:
546:08:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
520:00:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
499:23:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
464:17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
444:17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
409:19:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
379:16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
362:14:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
337:14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
325:14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
308:14:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
290:13:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
279:13:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
254:13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
229:20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
606:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
596:13:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
579:06:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
489:" would have sufficed.
372:some time and effort. —
62:12:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
491:Lesser Cartographies
243:. Should I now vote
548:
466:
446:
625:
608:
564:
558:
544:
538:
536:
534:
518:
512:
407:
401:
360:
354:
323:
317:
306:
300:
277:
271:
227:
221:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
633:
632:
628:
627:
626:
624:
623:
622:
621:
615:deletion review
604:
586:, not notable.
562:
556:
549:
540:
529:
527:
510:
508:
482:, a simple "No
399:
397:
352:
350:
315:
313:
298:
296:
269:
267:
245:procedural keep
219:
217:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
631:
629:
620:
619:
599:
598:
581:
537:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
502:
501:
484:WP:INDEPENDENT
468:
467:
447:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
384:I only PROD'd
310:
257:
256:
203:WP:INDEPENDENT
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
630:
618:
616:
612:
607:
601:
600:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:
580:
576:
572:
568:
561:
554:
551:
550:
547:
543:
542:North America
535:
532:
521:
517:
513:
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
428:
427:
410:
406:
402:
395:
391:
387:
382:
381:
380:
377:
376:
370:
365:
364:
363:
359:
355:
348:
344:
340:
339:
338:
335:
334:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
311:
309:
305:
301:
293:
292:
291:
288:
287:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
255:
252:
251:
246:
242:
238:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
215:
211:
207:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
605:
602:
583:
560:cite journal
552:
528:
471:
373:
346:
331:
284:
248:
244:
236:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
161:free images
571:Be..anyone
611:talk page
456:• Gene93k
436:• Gene93k
394:WP:BEFORE
369:WP:BEFORE
241:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
613:or in a
588:PianoDan
531:Relisted
511:Padenton
480:Padenton
400:Padenton
386:Napier88
353:Padenton
343:WP:PROMO
316:Padenton
299:Padenton
270:Padenton
220:Padenton
214:WP:PROMO
210:WP:NSOFT
120:View log
54:Davewild
39:or in a
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
584:Delete
553:delete
472:Delete
283:Yes. —
264:WP:GNG
199:WP:GNG
197:Fails
139:Google
97:delete
50:delete
567:1.PAK
487:WP:RS
206:WP:RS
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
76:2.PAK
68:2.PAK
16:<
592:talk
575:talk
495:talk
460:talk
440:talk
375:Ruud
347:tone
333:Ruud
286:Ruud
250:Ruud
201:(no
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
569:. –
266:? ―
237:any
208:),
189:TWL
118:– (
52:.
594:)
577:)
563:}}
557:{{
497:)
462:)
454:.
442:)
434:.
212:,
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
590:(
573:(
516:✉
514:|
493:(
458:(
438:(
405:✉
403:|
358:✉
356:|
321:✉
319:|
304:✉
302:|
295:―
275:✉
273:|
225:✉
223:|
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.