Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatnik (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 no consensus. Disregarding the confused contributions by APS (Full Auto), there's disagreement about whether coverage in reliable sources is sufficiently detailed, such that no consensus is arrived at and the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  08:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beatnik (programming language)

Beatnik (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)

Still just as non-notable as it was the last 5 times it was deleted. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail needed to establish notability under WP:GNG. Googling turns up (surprise!) nothing. Msnicki (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You're laser sharp in formulating your opinion! Pretty much as always. Respect and appreciation! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Your first argument is invalid – this article has been rewritten and its deletion history has nothing to do to with its present notability. And Google or other search engines don't return nothing. I can talk about the outline of sources, but let's keep the discussion objective. I worked hard to improve this article to fit these criteria and it passed the Articles for Creation submission (@Hasteur and Anarchyte:). We have 3 independent sources on this, so I would recommend to Keep. Here's the list of present sources:
So, oocities.org is a (copy of defunct) self-published material web host, cliffle.com is a personal website with COI, and esolangs.org is "the biggest resource about esoteric programming languages" (which, true as it may be, is not that impressive). As for the book, see Ruud's comment. I am thoroughly unimpressed; how is that supposed to pass WP:N or WP:NSOFT? Tigraan (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSOFT may not apply here, as it's technically a programming language, not a software. We should even consider creating a separate guideline for esoteric programming languages, I think. I doesn't matter if it's defunct or not, since we have Internet Archive. And self-source is not attributed to someone connected to the topic – it's a webpage of a l33t programming language and can act as an independent source. Besides, come on, this language is a proof-of-concept and won't have plenty of sources as it's not usable. There's no need to collect more sources claiming that this language exists. It qualifies to be an article, because it's an esoteric programming language, not because it's something big and useful. That's the nature of these languages. Esolang wiki would be the widest source in that comparison. It's rather independent, it's not a self-source or a poor quality statement. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 16:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think WP:NSOFT should apply to programming languages as well, but never mind: at any rate it does not get a free pass at WP:GNG simply because it is an EPL. If the "nature of those languages" is to lack serious sourcing, then their destiny is to not have WP articles. WP:ITEXISTS is not enough.
On the sources, that oocities.org is defunct is indeed irrelevant, but it is relevant that pretty much anyone could publish there with no control whatsoever - so WP:SPS applies. Tigraan (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some three other sources and emerged them into the article. While catseye.tc seems to be a little mention, those 2 others appears to be OK. They're listed below. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After these additions the article should be kept. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 20:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striked per Rezonansowy, under, and obviously it can fit in the EPL examples if it has an RS. Tigraan (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course we do accept sources in other languages, but I agree with what I think APS's real point, that this one strains credulity as satisfying the requirement in WP:GNG that sources offered in support of notability should address the subject in detail. It's impossible to tell from the link you offered whether the source even mentions the subject. Have you ever actually seen this source or any of the passages that discuss this subject? Or was this just something that turned up in a Google search and about which you have no better idea what it says than any of us do? I suspect it's the latter and that's just not enough to persuade me. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the Google books link I included. Look at the first paragraph on page 73. Even if you don't read French, it's obvious it is discussing this programming language Beatnik:Dans le registre de jeux logiques, le langage Beatnik passe pour le plus nonchalant: son programme Hello World! (ci-contre), ne fait qu'imprimer « Hi ». « Il possède un ensemble restreint de commandes, une syntaxe très relaxée, et on trouve des références à son vocabulaire dans n'importe quel magasin de jouets », proclame son inventeur Cliff L. Biffle. Le monde de la programmation s'intéresse de très près aux jeux logiques dits littérarires : cadavre exquis, anagrammes, palindromes, etc. Beatnik, lui, s'écrit comme on joue au Scrabble. Le choix des mots assigne des valeurs équivalentes au nombre de points calculés pour un mot dans un Scrabble. Le calcul de valeurs détermine quelle fonction est à exécuter. Chaque mot est une opération de calcul. It mentions its author (Cliff L. Biffle), it talks about how it is based on assigning Scrabble word points to words and using those numeric values to determine which function to execute (Le calcul de valeurs détermine quelle fonction est à exécuter). The following paragraph discusses Beatnik further. She goes on to compare Beatnik to other similar esoteric programming languages Chef, Ook, and Shakespeare. Paloque-Bergès' chief interest in this book is in programming as a form of poetry or literature (both programming generally, and certain specific forms of programming more specifically, including esoteric programming languages), and in that paragraph she sees motivation for Beatnik in the surrealist game of exquisite corpse (cadavre exquis). These sections (2.2.2.2 Le puzzle) and (2.2.2.3 Le jeu de langage (structured play)) are considering esoteric programming languages as forms of puzzles or language games (jeu de langage), and she sees Beatnik as demonstrating both aspects of esoteric programming languages. SJK (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed discussing the language (and others) though from a literary perspective (the book title is roughly "Poetry in computer programs"). Rough translation:
Among games of logic, the Beatnik language is thought to be the most casual. Its "hello world" program (reproduced here) just prints "hi". Its inventor Cliff L. Biffle claims that "It has a small set of commands, a loose syntax, and references to its vocabulary can be found in any toy shop". The programming world is closely interested in literary logic games: exquisite corpses, anagrams, palindroms, etc. Beatnik is coded as a Scrabble play: the choice of words gives values from the Scrabble scores for a word. Those values determine which function to run. Each word is a programming operation.
So it does discuss the topic in detail. One could argue the whole book is itself about a fringe subject so it should not count as much for notability as (say) a New York Times editorial, but it does count still. Tigraan (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE They come and go, come and go. Notable? No! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @APS (Full Auto): Your comments are nonconstructive. Please explain your objections in a more descriptive way. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 22:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • DELETE It is constructive. You just don't like what you see but that's not my issue. I repeat: there's no point in brining in EVERY SINGLE programming language into Wikipedia. Programming is applied science so there's clear "watermark" or set of them: Either project / language is used to develop some reasonably large even niche application base *OR* it's extensively used for educational purpose *OR* it brings something very new distinguishing it from the other ones. This particular one has nothing like that. So I'm still there. DELETE. You may disagree, don't like my opinion and that's your right! Either way please provide arguments. Thank you! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You don't have to repeat your own vote, and moreover written uppercase. And it is notable as you can see above your last comments, that's why I asked you for some arguments. Well, I can provide some counterarguments, after I have read yours . There's no simple way to determine, if some lang is useful or not, if a large number of them are Turing complete. Some of them are usable to code a kernel, some are suitable for SQL queries. But when we talk about the esoteric, not just a programming languages, their purposes obviously change. As you can read in the Esoteric programming language § Cultural context of esolangs, esolangs can be considered as code art and code poetry. The Art is not always useful, it's just art and may impress someone, that's why it exists. And IMO Beatnik is interesting and unique enough, to deliver its existence to readers in that way. Programming languages consist of things with a wide variety of usage. And Wikipedia should cover this outline, not just the small part, which let you code a business app or a next game. And I agree with you that not every part of the Internet should be sucked into the Wikipedia as it's not a WP:WEBHOST, but this topic is significantly different, it's not a simple WP:COPYPASTE from some place on the Internet. Cheers! --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's still non-notable. 3 links in a modern Google-ish world means... %Subj% doesn't exist! Look, Wikipedia is not a dump so there's no point for anybody to bring in here any shiny trash he likes. IMHO of course. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I stroke the double !vote. BTW, that is an impressively precise set of criteria that you have here; personally, I will stick to WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Tigraan (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks man! Just my opinion. "It seems that perfection is attained, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to take away." (c) ... Antoine de Saint Exupéry APS (Full Auto) (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the stand-alone article, but add as one of the examples at Esoteric programming language#Examples using the French book as a reference. Also, just give a simple example like the French book does, don't explain the syntax/semantics in too much detail (Piet is one of the examples that does this right). —Ruud 06:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Tigraan and Ruud Koot: But if we merge this article into Esoteric programming language, it could become {{Too long}}. I know that it won't exceed the WP:SIZERULE, but code samples don't count in the prose-size and they appears often in programming-related articles. There's nothing wrong with leaving good-referenced stubs here, IMO.
      • If you trim the article down to about the size of the section in Poétique des codes sur le réseau informatique, there should be no length issues. Also note that the book manages to use a much smaller example than the Wikipedia article does. Short overviews are infinitely more useful than simply copying and pasting the complete specification of the syntax and semantics of a language into a Wikipedia article. We're an encyclopedia, not the technical appendix of a language specification. —Ruud 22:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • But the code sample (which is needed to depict the language) would be useless without an explanation what it actually does. Is no conflict between the encyclopedia definition and to have a section explaining the markup. Of course they should not be written WP:Too technical, as everything should be understandable for every reader. See for example: C++ and its Operators in C and C++. That's the style of that articles. Articles about programming languages, esoteric or not in this case, are themselves technical – without it, these articles couldn't provide an appropriate level of topic coverage. Keeping it in this form seems to fit those criteria. --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • An explanation of what the example does can be given in prose. There is no need for the extensive tables. This language is not notable in and of itself, but only as a form of code-as-art. The manner in which we cover this topic should reflect that. —Ruud 23:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The important word is "could" - maybe, but why not try? IMO, leaving a couple of permastubs does not hurt, but having one good overview is better, content-wise. So it really depends on whether there is a suitable target - and in this case, there is. Tigraan (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in the Éditions des archives contemporaines book cited by SJK. The book is covered in detail. I agree with Rezonansowy that merge/redirect to Esoteric programming language#Examples is a suboptimal way of presenting the material because it would require condensing the current article, which presents the material well.

    Cunard (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beatnik_(programming_language)&oldid=1078079460"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatnik (programming language), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.