Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLANNER

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP — Gwalla | Talk 04:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PLANNER

An article which consists of basically nothing but references is not an encyclopedia article. RickK 07:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite, also add link to Category:Functional languages. - Sikon 07:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• The article has been rewritten. Please make further changes as necessary.(preceding unsigned comment by  CarlHewitt 08:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Too many references is better than none at all. Do you have any reason to delete based on the subject of the article? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Prolog appears to be descended from this language. Kappa 09:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it isn't. Prolog is a logical programming language, and Planner is a derivative of Lisp, a functional programming language. - Sikon 09:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten, but please clarify if it's called PLANNER or Planner. Radiant_>|< 09:51, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• It shold be Planner because it is not an acronymn.CarlHewitt 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Planner is citation 13 as a predecessor in Kowalski's paper "A Proof Procedure using Connection Graphs"CarlHewitt 11:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Just because Micro Planner was implemented in Lisp and used Polish prefix parenthesis syntax does not mean that Planner was a functional programming language. The Popler implementation of Planner was not written in Lisp.CarlHewitt 11:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Any additional questions, comments, or suggestions?CarlHewitt 11:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten article; PLANNER (or is it Planner?) is of significant historical importance in AI programming history. -- The Anome 10:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article, as per Anome. JamesBurns 10:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but is it PLANNER or Planner? the wub (talk) 13:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's just redirect Planner to PLANNER. - Sikon 16:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • PLANNER seems to be more common Pburka 03:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NSR 14:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly an influential project. --FOo 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep rewritten article Pburka 03:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Clearly of encyclopediac value. As CarlHewitt says, it should be moved to Planner, but this can be done when the VfD is done. --- Charles Stewart
• Keep recognized this one just by looking at the title.  Grue  18:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Encyclopedic topic. Even if first version was all references, it clearly has been able to grow into a fuller article. Hewitt POV needs some tempering with other POVs, but is still valuable. --Macrakis 21:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep very important topic in history of AI, many of these ideas have been reinvented since BruceAnderson 03:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The history is important and needs to be recorded as it is often mis-stated or misunderstood (witness some of these comments.) Certainly Planner and the surrounding arguments about procedures vs. logic caused an upheaval in AI. It might be nice to have a more technical article as well, but don't delete this. BTW, Planner wasnt (isnt?) a functional language, and its influence on the creation of Prolog was peripheral but nontrivial. The full history is complicated and deserves a monograph. Pat Hayes

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.