Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 14

14 February 2011

Nemerle

Nemerle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Here is just one very long article on Nemerle in a Russian magazine

#1 RSDN Magazine 2006

Note that RSDN Magazine is a highly-ranked Russian peer-reviewed publication accepted by the ВАК (Higher Attestation Commission) of the Russian Federation as a journal in which a publication is necessary for obtaining a PhD degree in Russia.

Reference: [1] List of such publications: [2] (RSDN is #2111 in the list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.13.115 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was hijacked by Reddit readers, which became the focus rather than the deletion discussion itself. A cursory search through Google seems to suggest that Nemerle has some notability (World News, several books and articles, and plenty of discussion on Stack Overflow). I do not know much about the subject, but I think this article merits a discussion that is not centered on vote canvassing. AZ _t 05:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't informed the nominator/etc about this, because redditors are watching his edits, and I'd rather avoid a repeat of the AfD. AZ _t 05:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Given the sheer amount of fanboy fallout that is currently going on, I think that is an impossibility. –MuZemike 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not exactly fanboyism or sock-puppetry, as far as I am aware. Here's the Reddit discussion thread - there's a few good points raised (if you look beyond the initial discussions on the nominator). In particular, the posters there have no affiliation with Nemerle. AZ _t 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The old article lacked particularly valid sources, but not due to a lack of such sources existing. There are at least few relevant, qualifying publications that could be used. See: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=nemerle the number of qualifying sources may be on the light side, but there is more than enough to justify a short article. SCVirus (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• permit re-creation, the substantial items on GScholar are papers by Michał Moskal himself, but there see to be about 50 citations to his work, usually in the context of comparing it along with well-known programming languages, e.g. "The .NET platform supports a wide range of 'native' languages (C#, VB.NET, and functional languages like F# and Nemerle just to name a few)."[3] or "For example, it may be written using X++, SQL, TSQL, C#, F#, C++, C, Pascal, Visual Basic, Java, JavaScript, Delphi, Eiffel, Nemerle, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, Visual FoxPro, Lua, variations thereof,or any other programming language or combination of languages" from a US Patent App. [4]. I think that is evidence of a reasonable degree of notability. And see [5] from IEEE--a citation like that is significant. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed. Just based on the fact that Mono, a highly popular open-source .NET implementation, supports Nemerle suggests its notability. The deletion requester seems to not fully understand that the fact that an article doesn't have good citations does not make its subject non-notable. Just looking at the AfD was pretty depressing, to be honest, given just how easy it is to see that the subject is notable with some cursory searches on the web. I have informed the admin who approved the deletion, but he has not yet returned my message. In any case, I support the reinstatement of the article, and if it is reinstated, I will work personally to improve its citations if I need to. Jwkpiano1 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar has 95 references to the language, mostly self-hosted or in other non-peer reviewed venues, but including some in high-impact PL journals. For example, the first reference supplied by "Kochetkov.vladimir" in the AfD was in ACM TOPLAS (high impact) with a long mention of Nemerle, saying of it that it is the first language to achieve a homogeneous embedding of syntax extensions through LISP-style macros. Kochetkov also pointed to the Fx7 solver, implemented in Nemerle, which is is regarded as an interesting and significant new technology in many new publications in automated theorem proving. I find the following chorus of opinions that the subject has no reliable sources disappointing, which I take to be a reaction to the influx of outsiders. As a heuristic, PL languages that return a lot of results on Lambda the Ultimate (e.g., for Nemerle), are quite likely to have sources of sufficient quality. Overturn and undelete: The number of reliable sources I found for the article is not high, but I agree with SCVirus there are enough to support a useful article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Overturn and undelete: Something that was not considered during the pre-delete discussion: Nemerle qualifies as notable under Wikipedia:Notability_(software). Nemerle is "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field", it has "been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources." While some of the sources cited in support of Nemerle being notable were relatively informal, like the workshop paper, the essay state that "it is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown." — gmarceau (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Do not undelete, but allow for recreation with reliable sources, none of which has been provided as of yet. Corvus cornix_talk 08:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete: Are you kidding? Taken from AfD:

Scientific (non-RSDN) articles which bases at Nemerle, or uses it/researches arround it, or have a references to it:

1. Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming (PDF)
2. E-matching for Fun and Profit (PDF) (Fx7 project, mentioned in article was moved here)
3. Rocket-fast proof checking for SMT solvers (PDF)
4. Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories (PDF)
5. Evolving a DSL Implementation (PDF)
6. An ECMAScript Compiler for the .NET Framework Isn't freely avaiable (PDF presentation that can be found is not an article itself), but references Nemerle (check the "References" tab at ACM article's page).
7. Efficient E-Matching for SMT Solvers (PDF)
8. Using Dynamic Symbolic Execution to Improve Deductive Verification Isn't freely avaiable, but references Nemerle (check the "References" tab at ACM article's page).
9. Comparative Study of DSL Tools (PDF)
10. Edit and Verify (PDF)
11. Fast Quantifier Reasoning With Lazy Proof Explication (PDF)

Some significant projects, written in Nemerle.

1. Russian Mathematics Equation Search Engine and it's international interface
2. Ready to use Ruby On Rails derriviative for .NET platform

--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk)

Also, there is an article on InfoQ: [6] and it is noted in another one: [7]

Generative and transformational techniques in software engineering II: international summer school, GTTSE 2007, Braga, Portugal

Tools and algorithms for the construction and analysis of systems: 14th international conference

• Overturn and undelete. Many sources have been found and consensus was strongly against deletion. Shouldn't have been brought to AfD, and SarekofVulcancertainly shouldn't have deleted it. Allowing recreation is insufficient, as why would you make people go through the extra effort of recreating it when you can simply expand and source the original? Throwaway85 (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete; reliable sources exist, and there's no reason to be prejudiced against the original content that was there prior to deletion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep per sources presented and DGG. --Cyclopia^talk 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. Wikipedia is not Britannica. Notability must be considered in the most specific terms, in this case, for software. Allow for expansion from what existed.

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)