- 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantom (programming language) (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)
Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Virtually all the sources offered are WP:PRIMARY and do not contribute to notability. None of the rest are sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. The best source is probably the Dulce article, Scala, Haskell and Fantom Programming Language on scribd.com and docslide but there's no indication this was ever published in a reliable source. Googling turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep So the sources as presently composed do not seem to support inclusion requirements for verifiability, reliability, notability,etc. That said, there seems to be at least 1 academic paper that may discuss it in more than passing (for those with academic access, it's behind the ACM paywall). There are also three articles about it that I would consider at the very least editorially independent, if not notable themselves. While I would never hold the software category overall to this standard, there does appear to be a book about it coming out, which could settle the debate. Overall, it's not a strong case, and very possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:TOOSOON. There a short subsection on Fantom in the Related Work section of http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2481268.2481278, but that paper is itself uncited. —Ruud 18:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The InfoWorld article and the Dr. Dobb's article are independent, reliable secondary sources in publications that have been around since the 1970's. I can't see all of the SD Times article, but it too appears to be analyzing and comparing the language. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dobbs article is by the author of the language, making it WP:PRIMARY and thus unhelpful in establishing notability. The InfoWorld article is helpful but barely. I think we still need at least one more good (hopefully, better) source. Msnicki (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added another Dr. Dobb's article to the page: "Top five scripting languages on the JVM: Groovy and JRuby lead a strong field, with Scala, Fantom, and Jython following behind". StarryGrandma (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding those sources StarryGrandma. This may have been a borderline keep in 2011, but the fact there are no sources outside late-2010/early-2011 indicates this language failed to make any lasting historical impact. —Ruud 10:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary:
Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
StarryGrandma (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That I speculate that this article may have been kept in a hypothetical deletion discussion occurring in 2011, does not mean that I claim that this language has at any point in time been the subject of the "significant coverage" that would confer it eternal notability. It's just an empirical observation that we tend to employ a healthy dose of recentism when assessing what counts as significant coverage and what does not. And as the paragraphs following those you quoted explain, that assessment can change over time. —Ruud 20:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now maybe as although the sourcing could be better here and I was going to suggest drafting and userfying. Pinging familiar user Czar. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 1 November 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.