Talk:Lib Sh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
removed delete proposal.
External links (rapidshare) provide enough reson and notabilility for its existance. :Leuk he (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see any WP:RSS nor does Google find much. What does (or could) RapidShare have to do with this? Potatoswatter (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- With rapidshare i meant to say rapidmind, which passed your google test. I don't see what you want to say with wp:rss, what has this to do with a rss link. if someone wrote a book about it, is it then notable?http://www.amazon.com/Metaprogramming-GPUs-Sh-Michael-McCool/dp/1568812299 :Leuk he (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought RSS stood for "reliable secondary WP:SOURCEs." That book is also a WP:PRIMARY source, written by the author of Sh, and the libsh.org frontpage is labeled "Copyright 2003-2006 RapidMind Inc." I'm inclined to believe, given the low level of online activity generated during the project's lifetime, that nobody else actually used it or talked about it to a degree that would confer WP:Notability—certainly nothing originating outside the Lib Sh/RapidMind group is linked from the article. The linked forum does not give a positive impression of its usability or support. Potatoswatter (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can find tons of reference to this library. * http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/09/20/1747210.shtml?tid=156&tid=152&tid=192&tid=6
- With rapidshare i meant to say rapidmind, which passed your google test. I don't see what you want to say with wp:rss, what has this to do with a rss link. if someone wrote a book about it, is it then notable?http://www.amazon.com/Metaprogramming-GPUs-Sh-Michael-McCool/dp/1568812299 :Leuk he (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The library itself might be superseded now, but it still is interesting in itself. :Leuk he (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Two are not "tons" and sources not references matter. The Slashdot book review is light on discussion of the language, and admits that the language (at that time, mid 2004) was little used and "under heavy development." The paper merely acknowledges the existence of Sh and a competitor in a single sentence at the end. The Slashdot review alone could carry this through WP:AfD, but my opinion is it shouldn't and it's worth trying. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
