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. Consensus that there is no significant, reliable coverage evident. Skomorokh, barbarian 05:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shed Skin

[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This software is the creation of one programmer, who is also the creator of the article (which suggests WP:COI, especially since the same time frame saw him adding detailed discussion of Shed Skin to the main Python article) There do not seem to have been large improvements to the software since its initial creation and alpha/beta release, and it remains an "interesting toy" as of today, as far as I can tell. That said, I have also spoken with prominent members of the Python community who mentioned an interest in the software without prompting by me (i.e. I have made the main improvements to the article following its creation by Shed Skin's creator). It might well just be that this awareness by Pythonistas hasn't reached published sources, and hence not notability for WP purposes. LotLE×talk 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the software is primarily the work of a single person, it is useful (I've used it several times)and not merely a toy. There are articles on comparable software Psyco and Unladen Swallow. My vote is to not delete the article. I wouldn't object, however, if these several articles about software projects to improve Python's performance were to be grouped into a single article or sub-article of Python.71.38.174.228 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If that's the case, then it also may fail WP:NPOV. Agreed, not enough coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetchcomms (talk • contribs) 03:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only commented initially, but now lean towards delete largely because of the comment by 71.38.174.228 above. Partially, I wonder if that anon is the same creator of Shed Skin who has promoted the article. But more importantly, I think the contrast with Psyco and Unladen Swallow clarifies my thinking. Those are long term projects by many developers; and importantly, both of them are feature-complete compilers for the entire Python language rather than a test compiler of a narrow subset of the language. Given than Shed Skin is the work of just one person, and has not been significantly improved since its developer's thesis project creating it, it just doesn't seem like any reason to keep it now. If, someday in the future, the project becomes more than it is now, we can re-create the article. LotLE×talk 02:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant tool for Python developers (I use it myself). While I reckon the lack of secondary sources to write a detailed article about Shed Skin, it's mentioned on several developer blogs, sometimes with benchmarks showing that it's not just a toy compared to Psycho / Pypy..., what IMHO is enough for this short article. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] — Arkanosis ^✉ 11:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like every proposed source that Arkanosis mentions is a blog entry. It is true that Shed Skin has been moderately mentioned in the blogosphere (or was back in 2007 when all these sources were written), but it doesn't seem to have gotten any actual mainstream coverage in WP:RS-type publications. LotLE×talk 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm these are blog entries, if not clear in my first intervention. — Arkanosis ^✉ 15:12, 13 November 2009 (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.