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. MBisanz ^talk 04:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haskore[edit]

Haskore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It's messy, ad written, and it doesn't assert notability, nor seems that it is. If this is a total screw up on my part then let me now. It's been so long. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No secondary sources. It's more like a "how-to" right now. It would be better posted in a music software site than on WP. Redddogg (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I will readily concede that it is messy (I would have written it better), but it is certainly notable. Consider a quick Haskore search on Google Scholar. As one would expect of a major research vehicle for Dr. Hudak of Yale, there are papers on it which are cited repeatedly - "Haskore music notation-An algebra of music" is cited dozens of times; besides the papers, it is one of the oldest large Haskell projects and a simplified version of Haskore is a key pedagogical ingredient of his The Haskell School of Expression textbook.

That is, from an academic standpoint I believe it as notable as, say, Xmonad. --Gwern (contribs) 12:03 26 September 2008 (GMT)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Haskell is developed and used mostly by academics. There is a Journal of functional programming, ICFP etc. An inevitable side-effect is that you'll find a lot more academic citations for a Haskell library than for the equivalent C++/Java/someotherlanguage library. VG ☎ 13:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that. There may be a few JoFPs & conferences which explicitly focus on functional programming, but that's a reaction to the overwhelming mass of all the other stuff, which are so mainstream that they are practically default. Arguendo, I'd also note that I've never seen anything in the relevant criteria that discriminate against 'noisy minorities' (as you seem to suggest the Haskell community is). --Gwern (contribs) 14:02 29 September 2008 (GMT)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I can't find any reliable secondary sources. Reyk _YO! 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources are there, article needs clean-up but that's not a reason to delete. Google books [1] has 20+ hits. -- Banjeboi 22:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough sources (books, academic papers) to make it notable. VG ☎ 19:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... can you point them out, please? Stifle (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you expect a list of reviews like for popular software, that's not likely to happen. Academic papers mention significant related work, and usually summarize it in a paragraph at the most. The only exception are survey papers, but even there the coverage is generally not extensive. The initial paper about Haskore has 23 third-party citations on CiteseerX [2] and 53 (total) on Google scholar. Here are a few papers describing Haskore as related work: [3], [4], [5]. In comparison Lilypond has far fewer academic citations, but cites Haskore in its academic paper [6]; another proof that popular ≠ notable). It's also covered in The Haskell School of Expression: Learning Functional Programming Through Multimedia by Paul Hudak, Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0521643384. While Hudak is the primary author of the initial Haskore paper, I would not consider CUP vanity press. These seems sufficient to me to prove notability. I expect(ed) the functional programming buffs to add these references to the article. VG ☎ 23:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also mentioned a number of times in A Semantic Time Framework for Interactive Media Systems by Eric Lee, Cuvillier Verlag, ISBN 3867274363. VG ☎ 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Might be able to scrape together an article using accessible, reliable source material Google books, Google scholar, Google news. If no changes, AfD2 in three months. -- Suntag ☼ 01:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources which are a requirement of the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (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.