Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ur (programming language)

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 keep. Sandstein 21:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ur (programming language)

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

non notable programming language Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This programming language is notable because it represents a productivity improvement (generates from a single program the server code, client code, AJAX interoperation as a single function call, and typed sql access), and an integration quality enhancer vs actual solutions. Check some reviews here:

* Phys.org

* ComputerWorld

* MIT (more technical).

And it works. Other web integration languages, the Links (programming language) is nor as ready, neither as powerful, as Ur, and is also in the wikipedia Griba2010 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The 3rd link is not a sign of notability. The first two both indicate that this is a paper that hasn't even been released yet. The phys.org one says "Provided by MIT", so is not independent of the subject and does not count towards notability. There is no sign of anyone ever programming in this language or gaining any traction outside these essentially press releases.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, this page lists some production applications that use the language, including the moderately popular BazQux Reader. Not to mention the hundreds of results found in github search alone. --Waldir ^talk 19:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews from

* pcadvisor.co.uk

* SDTimes.com

* BostInno

* EzYang.com - How Ur/Web records work and what it might mean for Haskell

* heise.de

* innovacion.ticbeat.com

Griba2010 (talk) 10:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having an article on the syntax of a programming language is not really encyclopedic. If someone could find and add information about the language's use, relevance in academia, or really anything other than its syntax, it might be notable. Piboy51 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article could certainly be improved in the ways you describe, notability should ideally be analyzed based on the sources available - not the current state of the article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The bar for programming languages is pretty low. Usually all that's required is to show it is used by someone other than the creators. From the comments in this AfD we now know about BazQux Reader, plus some intelligent coverage by multiple reliable sources, including the senior editor of SD Times. That's enough for me. – Margin1522 (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above. --Waldir ^talk 15:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. All the coverage seems to pertains to a single news cycle, by the looks of it triggered by a single press release (MIT has a good PR department). There's one real-world application, and in terms of scientific notability, the main publication's 44 citations in five years (on GScholar, which overestimates these numbers) is low. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The deletion of Links (programming language) is precedent for deleting this one as well. The citation scores for scientific articles about that language where a lot higher than for this one. The only difference is a lot of popular press picking up on the promises of Ur. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refs provided by Griba2010 above demonstrate notability. ~KvnG 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has a lot of work to be done, but references provided above are enough to establish notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:31, 19 January 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.