Talk:Ring (programming language)
![]() | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | Computer science Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
|
Copy
There seems to be some copying or close paraphrasing from the official site (see report). I am unable to determine whether the copyright used by this source is compatible with Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think the source is compatible with Wikipedia - The original content is a free-open source project that uses MIT License for the source code, website content and the documentation. Charmk (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Notability
Evidence in cited sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] ~Kvng (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Previous deletion
Our guiding principle in deciding whether to accept drafts is whether it is WP:LIKELY to be deleted once accepted. This article has been previously deleted a little over a year ago and the discussion was not pretty. It is unlikly to get the benefit of doubt in a second hearing at AfD. Of the sources I've identified as potential evidence for notability, only InfoWorld was published after the delete discussion. That doesn't strike me as compelling enough to reopen this. Charmk, what has changed since the deletion discussion that would convince AfD participants that this subject is now notable? ~Kvng (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Kvng Beside the InfoWorld article, a Book published by Apress which is a notable publisher, The book is written by one of the contributors to the Ring project who contributed to the project while writing the book. Ring Team in 2018 - Ring Team in 2020. Also I discovered the DotNetPro coverage after the deletion discussion. Since this is an open-source project we can relax our criteria and accept references like GeekBrains this one. Also an entry by Softpedia Charmk (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Charmk, I've reviewed the deletion discussion and my read is that this is not going to be enough to get a different result. I can ping the participants of the previous discussion here if you want to keep pushing on this. ~Kvng (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Kvng I trust your evaluation, we can wait until an extra references appears then we continue. Charmk (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Charmk, I've reviewed the deletion discussion and my read is that this is not going to be enough to get a different result. I can ping the participants of the previous discussion here if you want to keep pushing on this. ~Kvng (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Notability (In 2021)
Evidence in cited sources:
(1) Three articles by Dr. Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy : [6], [7], [8]
(2) New printed book (In Arabic Language) by Ghanem : [9]
(3) InfoWorld Article by Paul Krill : [10]
- Kvng The article is updated using new references. Charmk (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- Unassessed Computer science articles
- Unknown-importance Computer science articles
- WikiProject Computer science articles