Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojo (programming language)

Mojo (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)

Programming language, with no serious claims to notability. Was sent to draft by NPP, banged back into mainspace with the claim of multiple RS. I don't see them here and WP:BEFORE shows no record of enduring influence or prominence/notability as a language tool. And the article's promotional, to boot. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete. InfoWorld seems fine. Others do not seem to be independent. Definitely has the feel of a promotional article, too. —siro χ o 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I am fine with draftify proposed below as well —siro χ o 20:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are in the front: 2 infoworld, the register, and analytics india magazine. As far as I can tell they are all independent, reliable, and cover the language in depth, as required for WP:GNG. The fact that infoworld wrote about it again shows there is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage. There is more coverage too, they're just blogs and stuff that's not really reliable. But what is there seems sufficient, and I'm sure if something interesting happens, e.g. it goes out of beta, there will be another round of news coverage, allowing improvements in the article's tone and quality to make it less hype-y. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur with @Mathnerd314159. A quick news search of "Mojo programming language" will show a number of reliable sources including Medium, Adafruit, and yahoo!finance. Additionally, the project lead for Mojo, Chris Lattner, is the creator of several widely used projects including the LLVM, Clang, and MLIR (co-founder) compiler frameworks, as well as Swift, Apple's de facto programming language. If Lattner's record holds, Mojo has a high likelihood of being widely adopted among machine-learning researchers and systems developers alike once it is released to the public. I will look into revising the page to reflect the wider range of sources available. Zramsey11 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medium is not considered reliable per WP:RSP. - Indefensible (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above vote being Zramsey11's sole contribution to Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify in my opinion, this article is a bit early but subject may continue to develop and meet notability. The InfoWorld article mentioned above seems good, more sources like that would help the article to sufficiently meet the requirements without much doubt. - Indefensible (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. The article may seem iffy to some now but there will only continue to be more sources on the topic. Not to say I think the current sources are bad though.

Rlink2 (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like WP:CRYSTAL though, I agree it might become notable but right now feels somewhat premature. - Indefensible (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Even treating this as a corporate product (which I agree is the best approach at this stage), this seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH based on the InfoWorld and Analytics India articles. Both appear to provide hundreds of words of in-depth independent analysis that provides source material for a decent article, or as CORPDEPTH puts it they make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub. This in-depth review from The New Stack, a source I'm not familiar with but which is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, also seems fine. At least on the surface all three of these appear to meet WP:SIRS. And there's certainly nothing surprising about such an initiative attracting this level of attention in the current environment. That said, if there are genuine and substantial problems with the sources, I'd suggest merging to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo. -- Visviva (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a skeptical of the independence of Analytics India source due to their "branded content" program: [1] "Syndicated brand material or custom featured stories are great ways to share your viewpoint."

I'm very skeptical of The New Stack, they seem to be the "journalism" arm of a tech investment firm: [2][3]. And the author is referred to as a developer marketing writer[4]

Currently the only source I trust is InfoWorld, and to be fair, it's a good article. —siro χ o 05:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]