Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Lisp

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  07:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Lisp (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)

This article seems mostly unmaintained and there is no claims to notability or significance of any kind. H.dryad (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit articles and then propose to delete them. You could have done some research and make the LeLisp article relevant. Sources for you:

http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/le_lisp

It is even available:

http://christian.jullien.free.fr/lelisp/

Joswig (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Joswig, I don't see anything in your above links that would amount to more than WP:ITEXISTS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is nothing wrong in editing articles and proposing deletion (unless the edit significantly degrades the article in an attempt to make the subject look unnotable or otherwise). (And FWIW, the only edit by H.dryad that is not AfD-related is this one). Tigraan (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think it is mentioned in reliable sources. See for instance:

1. J. Chailloux, M. Devin, and J.M. Hullot: LeLisp a Portable and Efficient Lisp System. In Conference Record of the 1984 ACM symposium on LISP and Functional Programming, p. 113-123, ACM, Austin, Texas, 5-8 August 1984.
2. Luis Argüelles Méndez (22 October 2015). A Practical Introduction to Fuzzy Logic using LISP. Springer. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-3-319-23186-0.
3. Fred Long (28 November 1990). Software Engineering Environments: International Workshop on Environments, Chinon, France, September 18-20, 1989. Proceedings. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 289. ISBN 978-3-540-53452-5.
4. Gian Piero Zarri (18 May 2014). Operational Expert System Applications in Europe. Elsevier Science. pp. 36–. ISBN 978-1-4831-4491-7.

Based on the above, I think it is notable as an implementation/dialect of Lisp, particularly popular in the 1980s through early 1990s in Europe. As Méndez p. 7 notes, Le Lisp is historically notable as one of the first Lisp implementations on the IBM PC, and also one of the earlier Lisp implementations to be developed in Europe. SJK (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perhaps as this seems enough to accept as an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, preferably merge once a suitable target has been created or found (as a permastub): The above sources given barely scrape through significant coverage, as well as the papers that cite the original article on this dialect (many cover it as part of papers about the "standardization" of Lisp (see also Common Lisp)). However, given that programming language design is undercovered by outside sources (like other more obscure scientific topics), it probably is weakly notable on a relative scale, although as a permastub, should be merged as soon as possible to prevent it from becoming indefinitely orphaned. Esquivalience ^t 19:22, 25 March 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.