Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verse (programming language)

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 merge to Unreal Engine#Verse. After discussion, a compromise suggestion was put forward with no objections. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verse (programming language)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I saw that this article has been tagged for sources since June 2024 and for notability since September 2024, so I checked the existing references, which unfortunately did not indicate notability. In the hope of finding better sources, I made searches, using three different web search facilities, but unfortunately none of them turned up anything helpful. The references in the article are the GitHub download page for Verse; a YouTube video made by the creators of Verse; a site called "VerseWiki", which speaks for itself; a paper with 8 co-authors, 6 of whom are stated to work for Epic Games, the company which created "Verse". None of those is substantial coverage in an independent source. Typical things I found on searching were the Wikipedia article; several pages on the site of Epic Games; a question about "Verse" on Reddit; more YouTube videos, at least some and perhaps all made by the creators of Verse; GitHub again; pages on blogs, Fandom, and web forums. I considered making a PROD, but decided I prefer to bring it to AfD in case someone can find something better than I managed to. (The article was created by a single purpose account, for which the substantial majority of edits were related to Verse, and, if I am not mistaken, only one edit was not related to Epic Games.) JBW (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. JBW (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verse is an important language of the near future, so we should cover it. That said, can we push enough WP:RS past WP:N? It's still (after two years) early days for Verse. There's still pretty much nothing outside Epic about it. Stuff like Lennart Augustsson here: https://gotocph.com/2023/sessions/2896/verse-a-new-functional-logic-language is Epic talking to the outside world about how open Verse is to everyone else, but as yet there's not much take-up of it. Tim Sweeney is pushing it not just because it's his bread and butter as the house language for Unreal, but because he's a language geek too and is interested in Verse's own particular set of foibles being the ones that we should all be favouring over, say, Haskell.

I expect that this will be deleted. But that's because WP's capacity to favour dogma over value is legendary. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly astonished to see an editor with so much experience giving such a pure WP:CRYSTAL argument as "Verse is an important language of the near future". And then to continue with "There's still pretty much nothing outside Epic about it", as part of an argument to keep the article? "There's pretty much no coverage from any independent source" is an argument to delete it. JBW (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read my !vote, or did anything more than linking a WP:WIKICAPS confuse you too much? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered engaging other users in good faith instead of pretending they didn't read what you wrote? It's not their fault you wrote such a terrible rationale. JBW is 100% spot-on: this is textbook WP: CRYSTAL. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My WP: BEFORE did not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Any thoughts on a redirect to Unreal Editor for Fortnite? Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same thing as deletion, in terms of then not doing that stuff encyclopedias are meant to do. Except it also rather supports the claim for Verse to be notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. We frequently use redirects to handle subjects which are not independently notable. You clearly do not understand what redirects are used for. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are done frequently here. Doesn't make them any better.

To be useful, a redirect to UEFN would have to be a merge and redirect, which is a different thing. If a topic isn't notable, is never going to be notable, but is stil worthwhile covering, then that's something we might do. After all, lists are a good example of something where the named topic passes WP:N, its components don't.

But what's the difference here between Verse passing 'useful' (which still needs to be sourced, per WP:V if not WP:N) and it simply passing WP:N? If Verse is sufficiently important to justify coverage in UEFN, and it's obviously a distinct topic (we cover plenty of embedded scripting languages) then why not just have it as an article? It's not as if it's restricted to UEFN only. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that we don't keep articles around because they're useful. See WP: USEFUL. I would advise that you familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policy before commenting again; I am shocked that someone with two decades of editing experience is seriously making arguments like these. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per Schützenpanzer, I think a Redirect to Unreal Editor for Fortnite is a valid ATD. I have also done my own searching on the matter and I am not finding WP:SIRS to support notability for this page. Moritoriko (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about Merge into the existing Unreal Engine#Verse? It's an interesting bit of PL work, not inherently limited to Fortnite, and something that they seem to have put a lot of effort into - but so far I can't find any published evidence of impact outside of Epic. Looking for research impact, I had a look through the 25-odd papers that have cited the Verse Calculus paper and none are actually engaging with the language or theory deeply; they're mostly "here is another similar approach" kinds of passing mentions. So I think it's WP:TOOSOON for a separate article for now. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:24, 24 October 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.