Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just another Perl hacker - Wikipedia

Article Images

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sungodtemple (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Half of the article is listing out examples of Just another Perl hacker, which we don't need. There isn't much info found online about this either, leading me to believe there aren't sufficient sources to establish notability. Based on the comments below there are enough reliable sources and I withdraw the nomination. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perl#Perl_pastimes, where it is mentioned. This a bit of perl culture that has been documented in reliable sources, e.g., [1], but not in great depth. I haven't found the in-depth sources needed to satisfy GNG and support a standalone article. As an alternative to deletion, per our policy WP:ATD, I suggest redirecting to the short Pastimes section in the Perl article, or alternatively, to Randal L. Schwartz, who popularized the practice. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perl#Perl_pastimes per above. Sanketio31 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Honestly, the coverage in secondary sources looks sufficient to me. If a Redirect is desired that's fine, but the topic is notable enough to be covered in multiple books: (1), (2), (3). Suriname0 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding these sources. Unless I misunderstood, the first and third sources refer to the same book. The first source does have depth sufficient to qualify as in-depth and independent. The second source I can only see a small snippet of, so cannot tell if it is in depth. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like the link might have died (or I borked it); I can no longer see the pages. It was two pages of coverage in a textbook, which seemed compelling to me. I thought it was different than the 2nd, but of course I can no longer verify that. I won't fight to save this article; I'll leave that for more interested parties. Just cause the sources exist to support an independent article doesn't mean it shouldn't be Redirected. Suriname0 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the page loaded after a few retries. It was [www.oreilly.com/catalog/advperl2/ this book], page 262-263 in Chapter 10, which as you point out means that (1) and (3) are the same. Apologies for the confusion. Suriname0 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's another book: [2]. I think more sources can be found by searching japhs. Significant coverage in two books and mentions many other places clears the bar for me. ~Kvng (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. That makes this a marginal case for me and in the spirit of consensus, I would support "keep" as an alternative to redirection. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:22, 13 July 2021 (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.