Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosel (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 Draftify/moved to draft. BD2412 T 20:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mosel (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)

Aside from a few press releases, I cannot find anything that supports that this programming language has established acceptance by the programming community and therefore may fail Wikipedia's notability requirements.

There are only 10 questions on StackOverflow that are tagged with mosel and the videos I can find on YouTube mostly seem to be related to advertising and tutorials uploaded by the creator. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 21:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem notable to me. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:(re-!voting below)~~Keep or perhaps better draftify~~ The likely clever thing to do on this was to WP:PROD it first, and if that fails make sure WP:BEFORE is done properly ~~hand~~first. When I checks the old books link and I see entries such as Algebraic Modeling Systems: Modeling and Solving Real World, Modeling Languages in Mathematical Optimization, Queueing Networks and Markov Chains: Modeling and .. I am not going to be convinced by the quality of the WP:BEFORE. I quite frankly haven't delved into the those references but the article plainly isn't currently fit for mainspace. I've put a belated-welcome on the creators talk page for links to the help pages.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Author here. I don't even know if i'm supposed to write on this page frankly I find Wikipedia really unintuitive sometimes.... Perhaps I should have edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optimization_software or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FICO_Xpress instead? The 'programming community' which uses this language is a very narrowly focused group of people doing mathematical modeling of systems of linear equations. My suspicion is that references to this industry/language on stack overflow is mostly full of open-source alternatives. Please view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_optimization_software for an indication of what this space consists of. The article was meant to be a 'stub' since I don't have a ton of time to complete it in one sitting. I was looking for more of an unbiased assessment of the language's capabilities compared to others listed on that page. I supppose I don't care if this gets it's own page or not. I wanted to link properly from the Mosel disambiguation page as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonybakermpls (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonybakermpls Its perfectly reasonable for you to vote here and reasonable for you to !vote here too but you really need to through the help and guidance and this page's discussion may feel like you've us at the trial in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Roughly speaking you've published a draft before it was in a fit state to be published to mainspace. I'd start by taking a copy of what you've done offline or to your sandbox; the page is likely to be deleted at the end of a week (though we might just decide to keep it). Also I'm sufficently weird to maybe decide to improve the page so it can stay in mainspace; but that might not be a good idea as you possibly likely don't have a clue about Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Citing sources (and we don't like youtube much as sources we dont). May be best to seek advice at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Your article will not be until a week has passed since nomination at the earliest. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anthonybakermpls please do not be offended by any of these proposals or actions and to be clear, we certainly appreciate honest and thoughtful attempts to making Wikipedia a better place! @Djm-leighpark has GREAT advice for you and it's a good place for you to start. I personally don't think it's the worst thing in the world if you have a connection to the subject matter as long as such COI is declared and edits are purely objective and factual. In my point of view, everyone who is an expert in something that wants to contribute has some degree of interest. I'm a Microsoft Certified Software Engineer and I have worked with non-profits, medical firms, publishing software companies and educational institutions. Those associations and such don't per se disqualify me from posting in related subjects. However, if I chose to contribute in such a way, I would have to exercise a great deal of caution to avoid diluting Wikipedia and harming the efforts of future consumers of that information. So, yes, please follow @Djm-leighpark's advice. Perhaps we can resolve this without a deletion and improve the quality of the article. Welcome to Wikipedia; we're happy to have you :) Alpha⁴⁶¹⁵ _{(talk to me)} 19:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Then optionally change redirect to point to Anchor [[:FICO Xpress#A-Mosel}} (printworthy, with possibilities etc.) What to say is doing my head in but I'm happiest with that suggested. Mosel is quite linked to FICO and may be developed there ... but that said the language may have some independence so it tricky. Might suit Wikibooks, and might not. Djm-leighpark (talk)
Draftify to give User:Anthonybakermpls time to create a suitable article.4meter4 (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2019 (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.