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.
Wikipedia is not a website for hosting documentation, manuals, or essays about the features of a particular language. See WP: NOTWEBHOST and not WP: HOWTO. Talk page discussion indicates that this appears to be a mirror of another tutorial page, and thus there might be copyright issues here as well. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you're here to complain because you personally feel that this content is "useful" (which everyone knows is a terrible argument that wastes valuable volunteer time, per WP: USEFUL), then we can transwiki this content to another place, such as Wikibooks, or selectively merge content to Fortran. Please remember that this AfD is not your soapbox to wax poetic about your purely subjective notion of "usefulness". It is to determine whether it violates Wikipedia policy; specifically WP: NOTWEBHOST, WP: NOTHOWTO, and Wikipedia's policy on copyrighted materials. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You could talk about histories an all that non-stop, but for some, it is sometimes just down to the features or the support of the language that makes it unique from others. Labratscientist (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple massive sections in the main Fortran article that already talk about the language's evolution. If you think that the content there is sufficient, this article isn't necessary and should be deleted. If you think that it isn't, then you've just made a great argument for merging. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selected content, with added citations to Fortran. This is a very, very long article with only a single reference. I appreciate the work that went into it but this belongs on wikibooks or similar. BTW, while a lot of this reads more like a tutorial, we could use more detail on language features and syntax in programming articles here on Wikipedia in general! I welcome those involved in this article to improve the Fortran article. That article does not have a syntax section, is not well organized, and does not have a comprehensive overview of the language features and syntax. Caleb Stanford (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been badly written, over a period of 20 years, by many editors (at least one of whom one would think would know to cite sources — but, no, not a one) but that it has only one citation does not mean that many sources do not exist. I picked the "INQUIRE statement" from the bottom of the article to see what reference books come up covering just that. Before I ran out of steam, there being much more than what I cite here, I got:
"Other FORTRAN I/O statements". FORTRAN in MTS. MTS, the Michigan Terminal System. Vol. 6. University of Michigan Computing Center. October 1983. p. 356.
Carnahan, Brice; Wilkes, James O. (1989). "Additional input and output features". FORTRAN 77 with MTS and the IBM PS/2. College of Engineering, University of Michigan. p. 8—23.
Redwine, Cooper (2012). "Input/Output". Upgrading to Fortran 90. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 442–227. ISBN9781461225621.
Gehrke, Wilhelm, ed. (2012). "Input/Output". Fortran 90 Language Guide. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 11—41–11—46. ISBN9781447130147.
Behforooz, Ali; Sharma, Onkar P. (1986). "INQUIRE statement". FORTRAN 77 Syntax. Prentice-Hall. pp. 100–101. ISBN9780835932738.
Counihan, Martin (2006). "Appendix A: Input and Output". Fortran 95 (2nd ed.). CRC Press. pp. 339–342. ISBN9780203978467.
Adams, Jeanne C.; Brainerd, Walter S.; Hendrickson, Richard A.; Maine, Richard E.; Martin, Jeanne T.; Smith, Brian T. (2008). "Input and Output Processing". The Fortran 2003 Handbook: The Complete Syntax, Features and Procedures. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 346–361. ISBN9781846287466.
Ramaraman, V. (1997). "Processing Files in Fortran". Computer programming in FORTRAN 90 and 95. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. pp. 282–283. ISBN9788120311817.
Metcalf, Michael; Reid, John; Cohen, Malcolm; Bader, Reinhold (2024). "Operations on external files". Modern Fortran Explained: Incorporating Fortran 2023 (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 279–283. ISBN9780198876595.
Joshi, Yogendra Prasad. "Use of files and related statements". An Introduction to Fortran 90/95: Syntax and Programming. Allied Publishers. pp. 388–397. ISBN9788177644746.
Brainerd, Walter S. (2009). "Input and Output". Guide to Fortran 2003 Programming. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 294–299. ISBN9781848825437.
Chamberland, Luc (1995). "INQUIRE". Fortran 90: A Reference Guide. Prentice Hall. pp. 270–272. ISBN9780133973327.
Some people have a lot of {{sfn}}s to add, but it is possible, and this extent of content is verifiable. Indeed, some of the aforementioned reference books have more on the INQUIRE statement than this article has. The current article is actually shorter than references on the subject. So not only is it verifiable, there's even scope for expansion. And yes, it should be clear from the chapter titles that it's not just the INQUIRE statement section of the article that these references support.
I think there are bigger issues here than the sourcing, though I agree with Caleb that the lack of sources in this article is independently problematic. We don’t host tutorials about how to use programming languages, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a repository of cookbooks, tutorials, and mirrors of documentation. This literature should be used to supplement the existing article we have about Fortran. There are many things I can think of that are verifiable but do not warrant standalone articles. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a tutorial in any way. Clearly, you have never encountered a tutorial. They do not look remotely like this article. This is encyclopaedic reference. The bigger issue is in reality your not understanding the basics of the policy, and what the difference between a tutorial and a reference work is. Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re way too fixated on the word “tutorial” here. Even if some part of this article doesn’t meet your weirdly strict definition of the word “tutorial”, it does not change the fact that we generally do not host mirrors of documentation or the nitty-gritty details about how the language works. We can discuss all day the difference between a tutorial, a manual, and a mirror of a documentation page, but the bottom line is that this is not an encyclopedic reference: it is a collection of indiscriminate information. In any case, I’m unlikely to be persuaded to go the other way on this issue, especially by someone who berates me by claiming I don’t understand basic policy. :) HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the normal everyday world's differentiation between totorials and reference works seems "weird" to you, then you do not have enough experience of real world tutorials. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply. While I agree that some content is verifiable and can be salvaged, I would still favor moving such content into Fortran - and rewriting it to be a bit less like a tutorial, and more like an encyclopedic overview of the language. I agree with HyperAccelerated here. Thanks! 17:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC) Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just some, it's almost certainly all content being verifiable, as the books are even more detailed than this article is, and (when I checked out their structures) seem to cover the same ground overall as this article does outwith the inquire statement section.
Moreover, this is nothing like a tutorial. In fact it is an encyclopadic overview of the language, and quite clearly reference material not tutorial. Go and read a few tutorials. They provide instructions. They have worked-through problems showing how they are solved, literally step-by-step "how-to" stuff. They set exercises to the reader. This article provides description. There's not a single instruction to the reader anywhere in it.
Arjen Markus's Modern Fortran in Practice (CUP, 2012) is a tutorial. It has chapters like chapter 9 on "Code Reviews", with sections saying "Be explict" (literally the 9.1 section heading) telling readers directly how to do things. Davis Miller's Learn Fortran (self-published, 2025) is a tutorial. Its chapter 2 starts off with a numbered step-by-step set of instructions, written in the imperative, on how-to begin doing the thing that the chapter is about. Rubin Landau's A First Course in Scientific Computing (PUP, 2005) is a tutorial (notionally with FOTRAN90 in it, but it seems to have been retargeted at Java without changing the part titles). Chapters start by setting a problem, then work through a solution to the problem, and end with setting further problems as exercises to the reader.
Really, you should both learn what tutorials actually are.
If HyperAccelerated and you weren't so erroneously using it as a rationale, it wouldn't have to be explained. You have yourselves to blame. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the word "tutorial" is not central to either of our objections. It is not either of our faults that you continue to insinuate otherwise. The core objection that both of us have is that we generally do not host information about the very, very fine details about a language, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (see WP: INDISCRIMINATE) or a web host that mirrors gobs of content from other places (see WP: NOTWEBHOST), regardless of what someone said on a mailing list two decades ago. Caleb's a PL professor, and while I'm not saying that you should take everything they say as gospel, I'm pretty sure that someone who teaches students about programming languages for a living knows what a tutorial is.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I think this AFD needs more discussion. But, foremost, I know you dislike doing this User:Uncle G but are you actually arguing to "Keep" this article as is? A closer shouldn't have to read between the lines in an AFD discussion and infer what you mean as far as the outcome of this discussion. Or would Merge be acceptable to you? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two main reasons:
1. Each version of Fortran has significant differences. Merging this into one monster Fortran page would be a disservice to readers/coders. As one example, Fortran 90 is common, 95 is an extension and both are massively different from Fortran 77.
2. There is a vast body of scientific code written in a Fortran 90/95. Fortran remains the 900lb gorilla, and almost certainly will for the next 20 or so years. (Disclosure: I am one of several contributor to a > 10**6 line Fortran 90 code.)
Did you even bother to read the rationale, which states that this article violates WP: NOTWEBHOST and WP: NOTHOWTO? This whole "lack of sources has never been grounds for deletion if they exist" is false, because we routinely delete articles on basis of a lack of quality sourcing. Also, even if you were somehow correct about this, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Furthermore, the number of versions a piece of software has does not matter, because Wikipedia is not a WP: CHANGELOG either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a spinout article. If you took just one minute to read the Talk page discussion or the rationale, you would know that this is a mirror of someone's writings about Fortran, not a WP: SPINOUT. Have you read either of these two things? HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that is hardly relevant. The copyright issues can be solved by editing: the article should not be deleted on these grounds. It is a spinout in the broad sense it covers a topic that would be too long to cover in the main Fortran article. cyclopiaspeak!23:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it were one paragraph, I’d be inclined to agree. But all or nearly all of the content is a potential copyright violation. We’d have to blow up the article to fix the copyright issue: WP: TNT would apply. If you’re suggesting we just rearrange a couple words and keep the content substantively the same, that’s not how copyright works. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...which is another essay, and not policy. Sorry, but IDGAF about random essays. I mean, they're useful summaries of opinions/arguments shared by part of the community, but that's it. You disagree? Come back when it becomes policy. cyclopiaspeak!16:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a random essay, because we have deleted plenty of articles on the basis of WP: TNT in the past. It is something that has force, whether you like it or not. You disagree? Come back when you can show me that we've never deleted an article on the basis of WP: TNT. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the essay states:
Deleting severely deficient articles through the WP:AFD process is grounded in established policy. According to WP:DEL-REASON, "Reasons for deletion include [...] 14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia." Similarly, WP:ATD states: "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.
«It's not a random essay, because...» It is a random essay. Let me know when it becomes policy (or waste your time on the keyboard pretending they "have force", I don't care). cyclopiaspeak!18:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cyclopia, there aren't any copyright issues to solve. HyperAccelerated is misrepresenting that as much as xe is misrepresenting the nature of the article as a tutorial. Mr.Fortran (talk·contribs) dual-licenced xyr contributions; as explained on the talk page 19 years ago, and as acknowledged by the copyright owner xyrself 19 years ago, too. This is a wholly contrived resurrection of a non-issue; and HyperAccelerated saying to others to take 1 minute to read the talk page discussion, when reading it reveals the dual licensing, is ironic. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the dual licensing thing but I was unsure of how actually it worked in this case - that is, if the contribution could actually be dual-licensed etc. cyclopiaspeak!16:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is structured much like many of the sources. This is unsurprising, as both the article and the sources are the way that people know the subject.
Take Redwine's book, for example. The article has a section on control statements. Redwine has a chapter 3 on control constructs. The article has sections on modules and accessibility. Redwine has chapter 7 on modules and chapter 12 on accessibility. The article has a section on derived data types. Redwine has the entirety of chapter 5 on derived types. And so on.
And that's just one of the potential sources. Gehrke, for another, has an entire chapter 6 on array processing, with a section on assumed-shape arrays; and the article has a section on array handling with a subsection on assumed-shape arrays. Gehrke has chapter 7 on expressions and chapter 8 on assignments; and the article has a section on expressions and assignments. Gehrke deals with integer, real, double precision, complex, logical, character, and binary/octal/hax literal constants in chapter 3; the article goes through the same subjects, subsection by subsection, in the same order.
It's entirely possible to match everything up. It's just going to be a lot of {{sfn}}s and reading the books. (I have done this with many articles over the years that were created before we even got the <ref>...</ref> mechanism.) Yes, it involves reading. But encyclopaedists should be no strangers to reading.
Indeed, to take the COMPLEX section as just one example, the article even now has scope for expansion. Gehrke gives a more thorough and better explanation on page 3—5 than our article's 1 sentence treatment does.
Just for form's sake, Liz: This is an article that is verifiable from multiple reliable sources, ranging from CRC Press to IBM. A whole load of said sources are cited in the article, because I put them there, in a way that makes {{sfn|Gehrke|2012|p=3—5|loc=§3.6.3}} and the like just work when someone comes along who wants to do all of the tedious cross-linking; and there are many more. It is not an idiosyncratic representation of the subject, having ironically and acknowledgedly been written here in Wikipedia by Michael Metcalfe, author of several books on FORTRAN, including the FORTRAN 23 version of Modern Fortran Explained published just last year by Oxford University Press. So a subject expert came and gave us an article, amusingly explaining that xe had already written other encyclopaedia articles on the subject along the way. It's a verifiable, no original research encyclopaedia article by a subject expert whose only sin is to lack {{sfn}}s (because it was written in 2006) and give the subject too superficial a treatment in many places, something which Metcalfe even acknowledged (Xe couldn't dual licence that other encyclopaedia article, which would have given Wikipedia a better one, so xe had to start from another basis.) when xe wrote this. It could not be a more obvious keep as a good stub with clear scope for expansion, per deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A bibliography does not prove that there is no original research in the article. Can someone who thinks this article should be kept add inline citations for every claim made in the article to show that there is no original research? There's obviously other objections to the article being kept, but I think that's a reasonable ask. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe-tan trifecta signComments. I would like to make a request of all the editors who are responding here: can you please clarify whether you have been an extensive coder in Fortran, or if you consider it an obsolete language and code in C++, C, Python or whatever. I think this is very important context. Programmers in Fortran are almost certain to have a very different view of this article. I have done some programming in a line software used by about 3000 groups around the world, Wien2k. It is mainly in Fortran 90 with bits of 95 and a few smaller bits of C and Python.
I have added a few sources at the front, and detailed that everything in the document is sourced to the references included there and also the biography. If the vote is to insist on the letter of WP standards and inline source everything, then your replicate these everywhere. Or just remove the whole article. I consider the latter to be a major disservice to the wider community. I think this is a case where Wikipe-tan is really right and WP:Break all rules applies. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I still would have nominated this article if it was about C++, C, or Python. We are not a mirror of cppreference.com or python.org. Not interested in how many lines of code you've written in your life, and IAR is not a perennial escape hatch to justify terrible positions. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2025 (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.
