Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Es (Unix shell)

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 merge to rc. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Es (Unix shell)

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

Disputed PROD. This article was deleted at AfD in January 2011 and has been recreated in substantially the same form, albeit with a few additional sources. Unfortunately, all but one of the sources added is either primary (e.g., a man page or article by the author of es), trivial or otherwise unsuitable. The one added source that might support notability is the Linux Journal article from 1995 but our notability guidelines require multiple sources, not just one. Msnicki (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to rc, which it's more or less a clone of. That Linux Journal article is a good RS for rc too. 65.60.134.180 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree re rc merge. Similar syntax on the surface, but very different underlying language (similar to claiming Java is a clone of C++). I also find it frustating that related rc - admittedly a far more notable shell - has no references (and no-one trying to improve the situation), whereas much energy is being put into deleting the relatively well referenced es Wryun (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is always an option at AfD and it's one I always like if there's a good candidate page where the content would be appropriate. Msnicki (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (self-interested, as the person who provided the citations after the original deletion and who provides an unofficial github version of the source). Note that I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, so I will appreciate explanations of things that are obvious. Wryun (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't the multiple Google scholar citations on the conference paper support notability? If those were separately referenced (rather than the more useful original), would that be preferable?
- Why don't FOLDOC or faqs.org count as notable external sources?
- The man page is part of Ubuntu, the largest (?) linux distribution. Isn't this coverage from a notable external source?
- In fairness, I think this was definitely notable back in 1995 and is much more debatable now (hence the difficulty of finding current sources on the web). How does wikipedia feel about things that were 'historically notable' like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryun (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The other frustrating thing is that some of the other more recent shells in the category (wish? sash?) would probably be even harder to find reliable sources for, but I value their inclusion (along with es). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryun (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was very grateful to learn about es-shell on Wikipedia. It might not be 'notable' from history but its market was small compared to nowadays where higher-order-functions (HOF) are becoming a mainstream features of many languages, and maybe interests in HOF shells will grow. I would consider it a loss it its WP page was to be deleted. Agumonkey (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (ps: Apologies in advance if I inserted myself into the debate the wrong way, I couldn't find any 'correct' way other than editing source by hand.[reply]

Google scholar search identifies 14 citations for that paper. That's not a lot. A significant paper will get 1000+ citations. A major paper (like the Diffie-Hellman paper) well get over 10K+. You could check to see if any of those 14 citations actually talk about the Es shell. But it's likely they mere cite the paper else they'd have turned up in other searches. Msnicki (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2014 (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.