Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go! (programming language)
Appearance
- Go! (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable language. The article seems to be entirely sourced off the author's own publications. Per WP:N, sources should be secondary sources independent of the subject. If the only source of notability is the controversy over the Google's language name, then it should be mentioned in Go (programming language), not in a separate article. Laurent (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: it is not "entirely sourced from the author's publications", but also from two third party reviews, one in Informatica, a notable journal. The article is about a programming language that has been developed over many years, not about the naming controversy BarryNorton (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the Informatica source is enough to establish notability. The language is only mentioned as part of a survery of existing programming languages. All researchers have their research quoted at some point in one or two papers, but in my opinion that's not enough to establish notability. Laurent (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Well sourced article, the talk page seems to center around the discussion that this wouldn't have been added if not for the Google controversy. Conversely, I believe we wouldn't be having any deletion discussion at all if this article was added in its current form before the Google controversy.--Capnchicken (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- ...and it wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the Google controversy. Laurent (talk)
- Exactly neither is the controversy reason to keep nor delete the article BarryNorton (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Laurent, is there some policy I don't know about concerning the causality of an article's creation? (And could you please keep your comments at the end of the relevant replies rather than pushing my prior ones down and interrupting, out of turn?) BarryNorton (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: There are tons of academic programming languages. This one seems to have been last updated two years ago, and I can't find any other references to it other than the academic papers mentioned in the article. No one appears to use it. Part of the wiki page is ripped straight from the article's abstract. Definitely not notable. This page is the author's attempt to make it notable, to strengthen his argument against Google. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advertising your stuff and making it more notable; it should be reasonably notable in the first place. Marcan (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am not Frank McCabe, nor involved in the language. Feel free to Google me BarryNorton (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Most programming languages released to the public are notable; the journal articles and the news coverage vis-a-vis the naming issue strengthen Go!'s claim to notability. WP:N is only a guideline, and I am willing to somewhat disregard it in this instance as it doesn't work particularly well in the field of programming languages. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep (I agree with the keepers arguments above, I don't need to add a new one) --Gridinoc (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)