Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go (programming language)
Article contains no substantial references outside golang.org, owned by Google, and is either motivated either by recent news on its release (which is not notable) or self-promotion. The article does not belong on Wikipedia until Go has proven its notability. BarryNorton (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: The language has been reviewed in many tech websites. See for instance [1], [2] or [3]. We just need to improve the article and integrate the sources. Laurent (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- What a good idea. What a productive use of your time that would be BarryNorton (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well at least I don't nominate articles out of spite. Laurent (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't. In fact if you check the edit history you'll see I was contributing positively to this article. In the mean time, though, I've been persuaded (by consistency) that Google's Go language is not notable, after one day, under the criteria applied for an encyclopedia. This is not a tech news site, this article belongs on blogs. BarryNorton (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, you're DEFINITELY not power tripping. Nope. Not at all. hif (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't. In fact if you check the edit history you'll see I was contributing positively to this article. In the mean time, though, I've been persuaded (by consistency) that Google's Go language is not notable, after one day, under the criteria applied for an encyclopedia. This is not a tech news site, this article belongs on blogs. BarryNorton (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- What a good idea. What a productive use of your time that would be BarryNorton (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: This nomination is being made for WP:POINT reasons; please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go!_(programming_language). I suggest this nomination be quickly closed for WP:SNOW reasons (we all know the language is notable and has a lot of news coverage right now; it’s made by notable UNIX developers, etc.). Samboy (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- "has a lot of news coverage right now" - WP:NOTNEWS BarryNorton (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Fleeting popularity != notability. I would change my vote only after more references have been added that don't go full circle back to golang.org. brontide (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- More to the point, all current references appear to be from golang.org itself, original work of the golang.org team ( techtalk ), or references to the recent release of the software to the general public ( PR ). While newsworthy, it's not WP:N until there is a larger body of 3rd party references. The existing article should, in the meantime, probably be divided up between the authors pages or a Google sub-page. brontide (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Even if go doesn't become a popular language, this article is still important for the historical record. Jesse Bye (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Why? Because it's Google? There are thousands of computer languages BarryNorton (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: It's a record of programming languages. Wikipedia is an incredibly useful resource on this topic, and probably a major keeper of our communal folklore. There are a ton of less notable programming languages that have articles, and they're all great imho. Who doesn't love Whitespace or INTERCAL? hif (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)