Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z++

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 Revert to older version. Reverted version still accessible via page history, rather than deleted. No prejudice against its creation as a separate article ("Z++ (zhmicro version)") but will have to stand its own ground for notability if so.. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment and suggestions also left for author's, here.

[edit] Z++

Z++ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

It seems that the main author is just plugging his own, non-notable programming language. Simon G Best 21:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The reference section show independent, non-trivial coverage. The article asserts notability to a small extent, although it could do better in this regard. While it could use some inline refs, I don't think it should be deleted. Picaroon 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The first reference in the reference section is to a 1990 paper, "Z++, an Object-Oriented Extension to Z", by one Kevin Lano. It's about a different Z++ to the one in the article. The second reference is also to do with that other Z++. The third is about yet another Z++, again not the Z++ in the article. And the fourth is to something written by Kevin Lano, which would strongly suggest it has nothing to do with Zorabi's Z++. The Byte review is of a book by Kevin Lano and Howard Haughton, so, again, it's probably to do with that other Z++, not the Z++ of the article. So, it would seem that all of those references are to do with other Z++s, not the Z++ of the article. Simon G Best 20:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that certainly makes sense - thanks for figuring it all out. I'm now of the opinion that it should, like you said, be reverted to the version about the Lano's Z++, without prejudice against a creation of a new article on this one if it becomes similarly notable. Picaroon 20:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Author's Response. Mr. Simon G. Best had a disagreement on a point about C++ exception handling, in Google C++ news group. It is a coincidence that I came to this page and saw the deletion notice. I think it is inappropriate for someone to attempt to create pain for someone for a difference of viewpoint in an entirely different context. Perhaps someone with authority should speak with Mr. Best. Zorabi 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "[attempting] to create pain". Actually, I first came to the Z++ article in the hope of getting an impartial view of your Z++ language. Yes, it followed:-

1. reading your message posted to the Usenet newsgroup comp.lang.c++;
2. reading your blog post referred to in your newsgroup message;
3. reading your seemingly Z++-plugging document that your blog post was about;
4. and then visiting your ZH Micro website to find out a bit more about your Z++ language.

If your Z++ language is notable, please do provide some independent, verifiable evidence of it. My nomination for deletion really isn't out of spite, or anything like that. It's simply for the reasons given. Simon G Best 20:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment The first three cited are not peer-reviewed articles. Byte, however, is a respected professional magazine, now unfortunately defunct. There is thus evidence that the language exists, and that articles have been written about it. How significant ist is I cannot really say. Question--I tried to do a Google search. Quite apart for the 99% of other uses of the term, I can not tell if all the others refer to the same language--my results are on the article's talk page. (I was the one who asked it be deprodded & sent here for AfD to get some more information.)DGG 06:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Keep but Revert I'm the one who nominated this article, and here's why. but I've now found that the article was originally about one of the other Z++ languages. I'm now in favour of reverting back to how it was before the stuff about Zorabi's Z++ was introduced. See below for more on this. Anyway, here were my reasons for nominating this article for deletion:-
  • I first came to the Z++ article because: I wanted to get some idea of the notability of Z++; and I wanted to learn a little bit more about it without worrying about possible bias from Z++'s creator, Zorabi. But what I found, when I read the introduction, was that it seemed to have been written by Zorabi himself. I could tell it just from the style, having read some of the stuff on his ZH Micro website. It really came across as a case of the author promoting his own language. A quick scroll through the article reinforced my impression that Zorabi was the primary author, as did a quick look through the article history. I was left feeling quite unable to rely on the article for an impartial view of Z++.
  • A bit of Googling revealed about 222,000 hits for "Z++", but many (even most) of them were for occurrances of "z++" in code (without having anything to do with Z++ the language). (Googling for "x++" gives about 1,510,000 hits; "y++" 1,300,000 hits; "n++" 1,960,000 hits; "i++" 15,800,000 hits, "j++" 4,630,000 hits, and "k++" 3,840,000 hits.) As mentioned on the article's talk page (where some other Google results are given), some of the hits are to do with a 1990 paper by one Kevin Lano on another Z++, based on a language called Z. I also note that some of the references at the bottom of the article seem to be to do with that other Z++, rather than Zorabi's Z++. Although it was only some quick Googling, it didn't look like Zorabi's Z++ was particularly notable.

Basically, I'm yet to see anything to show that Zorabi's Z++ is notable, and I don't feel able to rely on the article as an impartial, neutral point-of-view article on his Z++ language.

Now, the article history shows that, on the 17th January 2006, User:Jpbowen edited the article and added a brief mention of Zorabi's Z++. However, the article was still about the Z++ that Lano wrote his 1990 paper on (not Zorabi's Z++). Then, on the 6th February 2006, an anonymous editor added "A brief intoduction" about Zorabi's Z++, as if that was what the Z++ the article was about. That same day, Zorabi made some edits, and went on to make many more edits, treating the article as being about his own Z++. The anonymous user who made the first edit on the 6th of February did so from 24.23.86.75, and subsequently made some more edits on later dates. That anonymous editor's contributions have all been to the Z++ article. From the style of that anonymous editor's contributions, it's clear to me that that anonymous editor is almost certainly Zorabi himself. In other words: Zorabi seems to have 'hijacked' an article about another Z++ in order to promote his own Z++.

I am therefore now in favour of reverting the article back to how it was before Zorabi 'hijacked' it. Simon G Best 18:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable programming language given the appearance of notability by bad sources. Since the sources were added since Zorabi last edited, I'll assume a good faith mistake, but I still see no basis for keeping the article. —David Eppstein 02:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but revert to pre-Zorabi version per submitter. —David Eppstein 19:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article is labeled as biased and not being notable because it was written by the creator of the language. So, who would be a better candidate to take on the presentation of a complex invention that automates distributed computing and mobile agents, among many other things? It will take a few months for a well-educated engineer to appreciate the automations of Z++ and how they reduce the pain of software development. And suddenly you could tell that it is of no value in a few minutes (if not seconds). In order to have an unbiased opinion, should you not know enough about the language so you can indicate some inconsistency, or anything. The reason the presented code looks bad to you is because you are not familiar with its linguistic constructs, and therefore not with their semantics. No one can take a look at something this complex and evaluate it on the fly, unless there is a bias. Finally, I wonder what bothers you from allowing others see for themselves. This is scientific work, not a product. If you think the article needs improvement to reflect that view, perhaps you can help by pointing to certain parts of it, and what you think should be done. Zorabi 06:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to the issue of notability, it's a matter of whether or not it's notable in a relevant sense for inclusion in an encyclopedia. If, as you seem to suggest, you're the only one in a position to write an encyclopedia article about it, it would seem that your Z++ is not actually (sufficiently) notable in a relevant sense for inclusion here. Also, Wikipedia isn't for the publication of original research (but there might be another Wikimedia project that is suitable for your Z++ stuff). Simon G Best 20:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and recreate the old version. The general rule for notability of programming languages should be that they are actively used by someone else than the creator. This gives some chance that the Wikipedia page will be maintained. The zhmicro Z++ website does not mention existing customers and neither has a public forum and nobody visits Google newsgroup [1]. Removing the text now does not preclude possible recreation of the article in the future. Pavel Vozenilek 11:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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.