Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potion (programming language)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potion (programming language)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another programming language that didn't take off. There are bazillions of them. —Wasell^(T) 18:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Whether it took off or not isn't at issue (see Ford Edsel). What's more important is whether anyone paid attention to it doing it. As the author was _why, that's likely to generate interest from the outset.

As to whether it "took off", then it has already. It's used by at least one group of drone flyers for image processing as it's fast, tiny and expressive for contemporary "what the cool kids are writing" coding style. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Have these drone flyers (or anyone else) publicly written anything that mentions that they are using the potion programming language? Dear Andy Dingley, do you have a name for this group or anyone in it? Even a few blog posts that don't qualify as Wikipedia:Reliable sources would lead me to support keeping this article a little longer -- that would convince me that there is a good chance this language will meet the Wikipedia: Notability guideline. Alas, I find it difficult to search for people using potion, because autocorrection tries to "help me" by giving me a bunch of irrelevant pages about finding position. --DavidCary (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it is discussed in independent reliable sources, it is well hidden. I did not find anything with GoogleScholar. A lot of the hits were typos for "portion", and there were several for "Magic Potion", a domain specific meta-Language. I did find papers on GoogleScholar mentioning both Michael Fogus and Reini Urban, but none dealing with Potion. Fails WP:GNG. It does sound like an interesting language and I recommend Reini Urban's summary here (not an independet source). --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. Fails GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another programming language with no obvious significance. The only thing in the article that looks like a reliable source is the Slate piece, but that one doesn't even mention the language. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's at best nothing to suggest a considerably better article here. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.