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 redirect to Code golf#Dedicated golfing languages. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 02:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GolfScript[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or other notability criteria: sources are primary, with the GolfScript site itself providing three cites, the implementation modules another two, and a single non-primary cite involving a game that by itself is far from establishing this is a notable programming language. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Redirect (article creator). It's one of the more widely used languages on the code golf StackExchange subsite (widespread use discussed here, here, and here), as well as on other code golfing sites. It's also the most used language on shinh's golf server. APerson (talk!) 22:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first link, "J and GolfScript suck all the enjoyment out of Code Golf", is a message board and not considered to be a reliable source. Ditto the second link, "On GolfScript and language bigotry". Ditto the third link, "GolfScript: A Practical Example [closed]". Any magazine writeups or reviews that you know of? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you in that message boards are covered by WP:SPS; however, they can be used as "reliable" sources about themselves (per WP:SELFSOURCE). In this case, the claim being made (i.e. that GolfScript is widely used on that site) is a perfectly valid statement given those sources, since the claim fits all the criteria in that policy. APerson (talk!) 13:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But those kind of sources can't be used to establish notability. My concern is that the language is unknown outside of the message boards of this particular community. That's enough to warrant a mention at Code golf, but (in my opinion) not enough to warrant a standalone article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Redirect per Mark viking. APerson (talk!) 12:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Code golf has received coverage in independent, secondary sources, but (as best I can tell) that coverage does not extend to the specialized languages developed for that community. If this pastime takes off, a greater diversity of sources will follow and we can revisit the topic then. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Code golf#Dedicated golfing languages, where it is already mentioned. I could not find sufficient in depth RS to establish notability. Golfscript clearly exists and it seems due weight to mention it in the Code golf article. The topic is a plausible search term and per WP:PRESERVE, we should seek to preserve verifiable information--in this case a link to the appropriate section of another article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2014 (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.