Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2.PAK

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. Davewild (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2.PAK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG (no WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS), WP:NSOFT, WP:PROMO. Unable to find any reliable sources not written by the creator. All papers seem to have single-digit citation counts on google scholar. ― Padenton|✉   20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 any reliable sources implies they didn't obey WP:BEFORE. Should I now vote procedural keep because of the nominator's lousy deletion rationale? —Ruud 13:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:GNG? ― Padenton|✉   13:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. —Ruud 13:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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? ― Padenton|✉   14:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I never said it was an essay. I said NSOFT was an essay, which it is. ― Padenton|✉   14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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? 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. —Ruud 14:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was an already-clearly-implied pedantic clarification that I thought editors could figure out easily enough. Also, WP:PROMO isn't only about promotional tone, 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.― Padenton|✉   14:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:BEFORE 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 some time and effort. —Ruud 16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. I only PROD'd Napier88, when it later went to AfD (I was not the nominator) I voted merge rather than delete. You agreed with me in deleting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Join-calculus_(programming_language) 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 WP:BEFORE, 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. ― Padenton|✉   19:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—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 History of Programming Langauges delete is the correct result. Padenton, a simple "No WP:INDEPENDENT WP:RS" would have sufficed. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will attempt to do better in the future. Corrected above.― Padenton|✉   00:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, one dead link + one obscure something very far from {{cite journal}} with an unresolved problem tag since February, 2013, + a red link 1.PAK. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. PianoDan (talk) 13:44, 5 May 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.