Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerald (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. per WP:SNOWBALL (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald (programming language)

Emerald (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)

Non-notable programming language. The only source is a paper by the creators themselves and the external links are its own website and download pages. GSMR (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think we should keep these articles, as they provide some details regarding the evolution of process based concurrent programming languages, and how they relate to modern programming paradigm. The 80's was a busy time in this area. scope_creep (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The topic is probably notable as explained above by Scope_Creep, but it definitely needs more sources. Find more sources on Emerald, and then we can discuss it in a new light. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnotable language per WP:Notability. Porphyro (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree that the article is part of a wider context that can make it quite interesting, although the current version of it does little to drive that point home. Better to keep the stub and hope. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Searching for "Emerald programming language" (in quotes) on Google Books and Google Scholar finds quite a few hits, many of them appear high quality (journals, conference proceedings, etc.) The designers of this language published peer review papers some of which have been frequently cited. The kind of serious academic research that Wikipedia should keep. SJK (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2017 (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.