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. Which does not preclude discussion of an ATD continuing editorially. Star Mississippi 23:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pure (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: N. There are some AfDs in the past that mostly made arguments that weren't based on Wikipedia policy (plus some off-site canvassing). There is a short article in iX about the language, but this alone isn't enough to meet notability guidelines. If voting Keep, please provide sources that are reliable and substantially more than a few sentences about the language -- there needs to be enough to write an actual article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I should also add that Albert Graef is the creator of the language -- sources created by them or their close affiliates shouldn't be considered for establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A lot of the previous AfD arguments were based on non-arguments such as "under active development", "unique language", and "not an orphan". IntGrah (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well, one of the previous AfD arguments mentioned a refereed article from the Linux Audio Conference 2009 proceedings, this ACM paper, and Michael Riepe. Rein ins Vergnügen : Pure – eine einfache funktionale Sprache. iX 12/2009, p. 147. ( http://www.heise.de/ix/artikel/Rein-ins-Vergnuegen-856225.html ). This seems like three decent sources to me. No? jp×g🗯️ 12:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The iX article is fine, but the ACM paper (An LLVM backend for GHC) only mentions Pure in a list of other languages that use LLVM (Pure: A functional programming language based on term rewriting. Pure uses LLVM as a just-in-time compiler.), and the LAC2009 paper (Signal Processing in the Pure Programming Language) is by Albert Gräf so it's not independent. Looking at other citations of Gräf's papers, I couldn't find any that discussed Pure in depth - it's sometimes mentioned as an example of a term-rewriting language but only in passing. It was a nice design and somewhat unusual when it came out, but I don't think it meets GNG. Adam Sampson (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rewriting - I think the best outcome here is probably one or two sentences on the language in a new paragraph inserted under Rewriting#Term rewriting systems#Use in programming languages. I agree with Adam Sampson's assessment of the sources, and it seems like there's been almost no uptake of the language in either academia or industry in the last 10 years (which would make me want to ignore the lack of WP:SIGCOV). I do think this should likely exist as a redirect, and I'm not confident my proposal is the best; there's some argument for expanding its discussion on LLVM or for including a sentence in Pattern matching instead. Happy to keep instead if there are sources I missed. Suriname0 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for Suriname0's proposal? Any better redirect targets? In cases of marginal sourcing, an ATD can be the best approach.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 9 August 2024 (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.