526:. We never do that for AfDs (backtrack all "what links here" and notify them). That's simply beyond the scope of an AfD notification. And I think we had some miscommunication--I'm saying that if there are any external links to the actual Rosetta Code website, those should be removed. Internal links can be kept--they'll just go red; then others may remove them later (leaving them in the text, but as regular black text), or the can stay red and if the site ever does become notable in the future, they would automatically relink if the article were recreated. At worst, the closing admin could do the deletion such that it automtatically removed all of the wikilinks; however, if it did so, the text would remain (black text), just no wikilink. Thus, no harm comes to those articles in any way.
960:: Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Multiple Google searches turned up no evidence of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've checked the sources provided by the !voters above, and they are all trivial, tangential or passing mentions at best. Even taken together, they do very little to establish notability. The source produced by Degrees above is a internet forum thread, far from being significant or reliable. Peter.kofler's argument about the lack of sources for community sites is simply special pleading, and contradicts our notability policies and guidelines. A classic case of
78:
488:
enough for its own
Knowledge article, which is a different standard than we use for determining what can be linked/cited. It's certainly plausible that a number of those links should be removed, but that would be a separate discussion to be held in each of those pages. While I would personally remove
735:
require detailed discussion, not just a reference. So, until evidence is provided that the site is discussed in detail, I still hold that the article should be deleted. As
Dominus states below, if you can actually show the coverage required in policy, I'll not only change my !vote, I'll withdraw the
884:), Knowledge itself would be a sad and lonely place. Although experienced programmers know about it and have already bookmarked it, people new to programming would likely look to Knowledge first. The deletion of this page would deprive them of knowledge helpful to researching programming languages.
1083:
in
October 2005: "Rose: You have called this, this idea of being able to have Access to a Patient's Records, Data, on the spot at the time you need it as kind of the Rosseta Stone of Medical Care. I called the Techniques that are necessary to Glue different sources of Data together the translation
503:
Your generalised delete all links is a tad harsh and this indirect AfD lacks a certain amount of transparency as the numerous affected pages are not engaged nor given any notice. Similary: If you want the page removed, then it would be reasonable to also take the time to follow through and notify
769:
site, maybe the the site is not referenced that often. I see this often with community sites, there are less references because the main content/work/reference is on the site itself. There are several thousand users registered on RC and in the last month more than one hundred people
489:
all of them (and I would recommend doing so even if the article is not deleted), I'm not going to take the effort to go track them all down. There's millions of improper links on
Knowledge, so it's just a matter of fixing the ones we see as we see them.
1147:- million such references/citations and a similar number of citations on WP itself could not save the article. Consequently - unless there is some other WP: criteria I have missed - it looks like the RC Article is destined to be deleted. (@
625:"Proceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference - Using Domain Specific Languages for Modeling and Simulation: ScalaTion as a Case Study - John A. Miller, Jun Han, Maria Hybinette, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Georgia"
546:"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
715:
before. Someone who is watching a page that happens to link to
Rosetta Code (which may, in fact, link to dozens or hundreds of other Wikipages) has no particular interet in this page. And if you want major changes to AfD, go to
1015:
should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to
Knowledge
283:
1043:) I have nothing to add. {I hope I will have a moment this week to track some "Knowledge Notable" reviews solely about RC, it would be nice to be permitted a RC expert point me in the right direction.}
1093:
The only thing I didn't find was information on the
Rosetta Code program for which this AfD was requested. I also looked for source information on rosettacode.org, but did not find any. Does not meet
635:"Prediksi Pergerakan Kurva Harga Saham dengan Metode Simple Moving Average Menggunakan C++ dan Qt Creator - A Rahmadhani, MM Mandela, T Paul… - … dan Simposium Fisika, 2012 - prosiding.papsi.org"
616:"Using Domain Specific Language for modeling and simulation: ScalaTion as a case study - JA Miller, J Han, M Hybinette - Simulation Conference (WSC), …, 2010 - ieeexplore.ieee.org"
604:"CyberMate∼ Artificial Intelligent business help desk assistant with instance messaging services - NT Weerawarna, H Haththella… - … (ICIIS), 2011 6th …, 2011 - ieeexplore.ieee.org"
564:) in favour of the better idea of simply "notifying other editors". In this case the watch list of editors is well defined, and better then drawing from our own lists of editors.
1075:
was developing
Rosetta Code software "that takes incompatible systems and translates them into each other, so that one system can automatically read the other" in July 2005. See
431:- sorry, at the moment I don't have opportunity to read through the catalogue of reasons a page should be deleted vs kept, me thinks a Knowledge expert is required who knows the
85:
607:"Software Mutational Robustness: Bridging The Gap Between Mutation Testing and Evolutionary Biology - E Schulte, ZP Fry, E Fast, S Forrest… - arXiv preprint arXiv: …, 2012 -
236:
673:. Certainly listing a page at AfD for a week, where it is only viewed by "passer bys" and "resident AfD-ers", the unceremoniously (and silently) dumping the page defies
833:
277:
853:
1079:
Were Mol's and Grove's efforts towards different products? They seem to be along the same lines with a same name. Grove again talks about his
Rosetta Code with
613:"101companies: a community project on software technologies and software languages - JM Favre, R Lämmel, T Schmorleiz… - Objects, Models, …, 2012 - Springer"
598:"The Implementation of Zoning for Winner Determination in Combinatorial Spectrum Auction - A Purbasari, A Zulianto - Informatics and Computational …, 2011 -
484:
Whether or not those links are removed has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. Here, we are simply trying to decide whether or not the subject is
314:
There is no indication of notability for this website. I searched and could find no reliable sources. While there are links listed on talk, they do not meet
677:. Maybe the one week time frame should be adapted and extended based on the actual activity of the related pages. (Not all editors live 24×7 on wikipedia)
666:
as your "User page" states: "Admin statistics Pages deleted 901", if it were not for this I would simply call the original AfD a glaring case of vandalism.
1071:- The article says that Mike Mol came up with solutions to various programming problems in many different programming languages in 2007. However, Intel's
619:"Advances in Sensors, Signals, Visualization, Imaging and Simulation - MICHAL MUSILEK, STEPAN HUBALOVSKY - University of Hradec Kralove - CZECH REPUBLIC"
807:
No, no in fact it doesn't. That has nothing whatsoever to do with
Knowledge's notability guidelines. Please try to provide arguments that are valid per
711:, since you have been clearly warned that we do not do this. You may place a notice on a relevant WikiProject, or you may notify people who've edited
243:
662:. It would have been a travesty if your AfD had of succeeded. I believe your intentions are probably well meaning, and you certainly have
680:
Bottom line is that a resource of AfD feed back and discussion would be simply the editors of the wikipedia pages that reference the topic.
457:(with civility, please!): I'm thinking, if so then it would be polite to add an appropriate "delete-me" note to the both the wikilinks
792:
595:"Touching factor: software development on tablets - M Hesenius, C Orozco Medina, D Herzberg - Software Composition, 2012 - Springer"
94:
998:
950:
946:
910:
796:
209:
204:
124:
345:
213:
17:
720:
and propose them there--don't try to use that here as some sort of smokescreen to cover up the non-notability of this website.
298:
906:
196:
265:
1076:
443:
it is a purely electronic entity. Hence Rosettacode in not in newsprint, and would have few paper scholarly citations.
628:"Linking Documentation and Source Code in a Software Chrestomathy - JM Favre, R Lämmel, M Leinberger, T Schmorleiz… -
110:
348:
which has undoubtedly been the reason why so many new editors have popped up to contribute to this AfD discussion. --
1026:, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits. }
508:(with civility, please!). If you don't have the time I can help you post advance notice on the appropriate pages.
638:"Using XQuery for problem solving - P Kilpeläinen - Software: Practice and Experience, 2011 - Wiley Online Library"
877:
622:"On the algorithmic nature of the world - H Zenil, JP Delahaye - arXiv preprint arXiv:0906.3554, 2009 - arxiv.org"
569:"at the moment I don't have opportunity to read through the catalogue of reasons a page should be deleted vs kept"
1181:
977:
40:
881:
1037:"We do not ever notify editors that way. Ever. Ever. If you notify them, I will revert you, and report you to
727:
of those discuss the site in detail? Or are they merely referencing where a specific piece of code came from?
669:
Is there a safe guard that can be implemented on AfD to make sure this does not happen again, eg a compulsory
589:"Lambda calculus with types" H Barendregt, W Dekkers, R Statman - Handbook of logic in computer …, - cs.ru.nl
453:. Are these links & contributions (under the same "delete-me/AfD" reasoning) set to be removed too? {re:
259:
707:
We do not ever notify editors that way. Ever. Ever. If you notify them, I will revert you, and report you to
961:
788:
775:
688:
687:) specifically and silently excluding these watch list editors is misguided and discounts overall wikipedia
576:
972:. Show me substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and I'll gladly change my !vote.
969:
156:
344:
the contributions on this page by NevilleDNZ should be considered in the context of his contributions at
255:
1177:
1160:
1106:
1054:
991:
981:
933:
893:
865:
845:
824:
779:
745:
702:
535:
517:
498:
479:
423:
392:
374:
370:
357:
353:
335:
61:
36:
921:
902:
889:
784:
771:
383:
site is itself cited by WP about 40 times. Esp in reference to programming languages and algorithiums.
462:
1156:
1102:
1050:
973:
965:
942:
929:
698:
513:
475:
388:
140:
114:
57:
305:
1091:
590:
291:
99:
898:
885:
820:
741:
717:
531:
494:
419:
331:
146:
77:
997:
The hardened AfD contributors may well know the ropes. But the editors defensively tagged as "
861:
841:
200:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1176:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1131:
requires and states: '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly
346:
http://rosettacode.org/Rosetta_Code:Village_Pump/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rosetta_Code
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1119:
searches and can conform his findings are accurate. About the only thing I can add is (from
1032:
553:
541:
523:
366:
349:
1152:
1143:
in some of these searches, but not addressed "directly in detail", it would seem - as per
1098:
1046:
938:
925:
694:
509:
471:
384:
271:
53:
1088:
1023:
505:
454:
83:
If you came here because you saw this AfD mentioned off-site, please note that this is
1120:
670:
659:
583:
1144:
1128:
1094:
1038:
1006:
816:
812:
808:
737:
732:
728:
708:
651:
647:
561:
557:
527:
490:
415:
327:
323:
319:
1001:" possibly do not. { FYI: I very much doubt that the current editors tagged WPA are
1136:
1124:
1080:
1072:
857:
837:
712:
674:
411:
403:
315:
192:
174:
162:
130:
67:
230:
1085:
109:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
52:. As usual arguments with a basis in Knowledge policy were given greater weight.
1084:
Technology, the Rosetta Code, not Stone. Rose: Rosetta Code, I stand corrected."
485:
878:
http://slashdot.org/story/07/01/21/1410208/Building-a-Programmers-Rosetta-Stone
882:
http://slashdot.org/story/03/01/22/0258226/Wikipedia-Reaches-100000th-Article
770:
contributed/worked/changed something. This has to be considered as well.
575:
an entirely reasonable page I am be being barraged but a mountain of
1003:"editing for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy."
579:
to research, when all I see that is needed is simple common sense.
723:
As for your Google scholar search, that means nothing. Does even
629:
365:
as per the nomination. Non-notable website & organisation. --
1170:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
684:
1127:
is specifically "referred to" in 30+ or so publications, but
1090:
and UW professor David Baker had his own Rosseta Code in 2006.
504:
each page then fix the wikilinks that will be broken ... c.f.
72:
599:
410:
be established through references in multiple, independent,
103:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
461:
other wikipedia links/URL's also. e.g these other pages:
1151:
Thanᚷ for taking the time to search/review, nice work).
450:
226:
222:
218:
1059:
I have added the template at the top per your request.
586:
and found RossettaCode.org specifically mentioned in:
290:
522:
No, and you cannot do so either--that would violate
435:
rules. I see the problem being that Rosettacode is
608:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1184:). No further edits should be made to this page.
736:nomination and apologize. But I don't see it.
834:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
854:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
654:in yet you appear not to have done the basic
304:
123:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
93:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
1087:Apple had a Rosetta Code translator in 2006.
852:Note: This debate has been included in the
832:Note: This debate has been included in the
851:
831:
97:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
880:. Without the reference from Slashdot (
876:site, It has a reference from Slashdot,
117:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
406:. In order to be kept, the notability
7:
24:
683:In summary: Fundermentally, to (
326:, the article should be deleted.
1031:At this point, given that under
999:Knowledge:Single-purpose account
571:, and it seems that in order to
468:About 261 results (0.24 seconds)
76:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1115:I have (pretty much) mirrored
1:
449:There are 40+ "wikilinks" to
318:. As it does not meet either
113:on the part of others and to
1161:05:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
1107:13:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
1077:New York Times July 30, 2005
1055:13:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
1022:should act fairly, civilly,
1005:Suggest you consider: (From
982:00:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
934:17:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
894:01:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
746:02:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
703:08:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
536:03:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
518:03:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
499:23:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
480:14:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
358:13:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
62:19:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
866:20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
846:20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
825:23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
780:10:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
567:As I said at the beginning
424:01:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
393:21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
375:07:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
336:03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
1201:
1121:google scholarly searches
990:Would it be worth adding
552:your "interpretation" of
402:Note: Knowledge is not a
1173:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
924:. He has a point here.
671:google scholarly search
660:google scholarly search
584:google scholarly search
463:Google: site:wikipedia
155:; accounts blocked for
125:single-purpose accounts
95:policies and guidelines
1035:(and with the comment
630:University of Koblrenz
451:http://rosettacode.org
992:Template:Not a ballot
951:few or no other edits
911:few or no other edits
797:few or no other edits
953:outside this topic.
913:outside this topic.
799:outside this topic.
646:You also claim both
582:BTW: I did a simple
591:Springer Publishing
107:by counting votes.
86:not a majority vote
1024:not bite newcomers
548:... I suggest you
540:re: I checked out
467:rosettacode =: -->
48:The result was
954:
914:
868:
848:
800:
188:
187:
184:
111:assume good faith
1192:
1175:
1141:"actually cited"
1020:Existing editors
962:WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
936:
896:
782:
556:(and maybe even
412:reliable sources
309:
308:
294:
246:
234:
216:
182:
170:
154:
138:
119:
89:, but instead a
80:
73:
34:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1182:deletion review
1171:
974:Dominus Vobisdu
970:WP:ITSIMPORTANT
577:WP:RULESANDREGS
429:Vote withdrawal
404:reliable source
251:
242:
207:
191:
172:
160:
144:
128:
115:sign your posts
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1198:
1196:
1187:
1186:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1110:
1109:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1044:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1017:
995:
985:
984:
955:
915:
870:
869:
849:
829:
828:
827:
802:
801:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
721:
692:
681:
678:
667:
658:with a simple
644:
643:
642:
639:
636:
633:
626:
623:
620:
617:
614:
611:
605:
602:
596:
593:
580:
565:
544:and it reads:
444:
439:peer reviewed
397:
396:
377:
360:
312:
311:
248:
186:
185:
81:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1197:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1168:
1167:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1021:
1018:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
993:
989:
988:
987:
986:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
966:WP:ITSNOTABLE
963:
959:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
850:
847:
843:
839:
835:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
803:
798:
794:
790:
786:
781:
777:
773:
768:
765:
764:
747:
743:
739:
734:
730:
726:
722:
719:
714:
710:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
693:
690:
686:
682:
679:
676:
672:
668:
665:
661:
657:
656:due diligence
653:
649:
645:
641:etc… &c.…
640:
637:
634:
631:
627:
624:
621:
618:
615:
612:
609:
606:
603:
600:
597:
594:
592:
588:
587:
585:
581:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
487:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
426:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
398:
395:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
307:
303:
300:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
261:
257:
254:
253:Find sources:
249:
245:
241:
238:
232:
228:
224:
220:
215:
211:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
189:
180:
176:
168:
164:
158:
152:
148:
142:
136:
132:
126:
122:
118:
116:
112:
106:
102:
101:
96:
92:
88:
87:
82:
79:
75:
74:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1172:
1169:
1148:
1140:
1137:Rosetta_Code
1132:
1125:Rosetta_Code
1116:
1081:Charlie Rose
1073:Andrew Grove
1068:
1036:
1019:
1012:
1002:
957:
922:Peter.kofler
917:
873:
785:Peter.kofler
772:Peter.kofler
766:
724:
713:Rosetta Code
689:transparency
675:common sense
663:
655:
572:
568:
549:
545:
464:
458:
446:
440:
436:
432:
428:
407:
380:
379:
362:
341:
313:
301:
295:
287:
280:
274:
268:
262:
252:
239:
193:Rosetta Code
178:
166:
157:sockpuppetry
150:
139:; suspected
134:
120:
108:
104:
98:
90:
84:
68:Rosetta Code
49:
47:
31:
28:
1149:Uzma Gamal:
1013:New editors
994:at the top?
949:) has made
909:) has made
795:) has made
367:Biker Biker
350:Biker Biker
278:free images
1153:NevilleDNZ
1133:in detail'
1117:Uzma Gamal
1099:Uzma Gamal
1047:NevilleDNZ
1016:standards.
939:SirAppleby
926:SirAppleby
695:NevilleDNZ
664:experience
510:NevilleDNZ
472:NevilleDNZ
385:NevilleDNZ
91:discussion
54:Beeblebrox
1178:talk page
1033:WP:CANVAS
554:WP:CANVAS
542:WP:CANVAS
524:WP:CANVAS
447:Question:
147:canvassed
141:canvassed
100:consensus
37:talk page
1180:or in a
947:contribs
907:contribs
817:Qwyrxian
793:contribs
738:Qwyrxian
528:Qwyrxian
491:Qwyrxian
416:Qwyrxian
328:Qwyrxian
237:View log
179:username
173:{{subst:
167:username
161:{{subst:
151:username
145:{{subst:
135:username
129:{{subst:
39:or in a
920:as per
899:Degrees
886:Degrees
858:Frankie
838:Frankie
506:WP:BOLD
486:notable
455:WP:BOLD
284:WP refs
272:scholar
210:protect
205:history
143:users:
1145:WP:GNG
1129:WP:GNG
1095:WP:GNG
1069:Delete
1039:WP:ANI
1007:WP:SPA
958:Delete
813:WP:WEB
809:WP:GNG
733:WP:WEB
729:WP:GNG
718:WT:AFD
709:WP:ANI
652:WP:WEB
648:WP:GNG
562:WP:WEB
558:WP:GNG
550:change
363:Delete
324:WP:WEB
320:WP:GNG
256:Google
214:delete
50:delete
1097:. --
316:WP:RS
299:JSTOR
260:books
244:Stats
231:views
223:watch
219:links
121:Note:
16:<
1157:talk
1103:talk
1051:talk
1041:..."
978:talk
968:and
943:talk
930:talk
918:Keep
903:talk
890:talk
874:Keep
862:talk
856:. —
842:talk
836:. —
821:talk
789:talk
776:talk
767:Keep
742:talk
731:and
699:talk
685:IMHO
573:keep
532:talk
514:talk
495:talk
476:talk
465:with
437:only
433:keep
420:talk
408:must
389:talk
381:Keep
371:talk
354:talk
342:NOTE
332:talk
292:FENS
266:news
227:logs
201:talk
197:edit
58:talk
1139:is
1135:.
811:or
725:one
650:or
560:or
470:}.
459:and
441:and
414:.
322:or
306:TWL
235:– (
175:csp
171:or
163:csm
131:spa
105:not
1159:)
1123:)
1105:)
1053:)
1009:)
980:)
964:,
945:•
937:—
932:)
905:•
897:—
892:)
864:)
844:)
823:)
815:.
791:•
783:—
778:)
744:)
701:)
632:".
534:)
516:)
497:)
478:)
422:)
391:)
373:)
356:)
334:)
286:)
229:|
225:|
221:|
217:|
212:|
208:|
203:|
199:|
181:}}
169:}}
159::
153:}}
137:}}
127::
60:)
1155:(
1101:(
1049:(
976:(
941:(
928:(
901:(
888:(
860:(
840:(
819:(
787:(
774:(
740:(
697:(
691:.
610:"
601:"
530:(
512:(
493:(
474:(
418:(
387:(
369:(
352:(
330:(
310:)
302:·
296:·
288:·
281:·
275:·
269:·
263:·
258:(
250:(
247:)
240:·
233:)
195:(
183:.
177:|
165:|
149:|
133:|
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
