This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JzG(talk | contribs) at 11:03, 14 November 2009(close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 11:03, 14 November 2009 by JzG(talk | contribs)(close)
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.
Fails WP:N. Most of the article is sourced off the author's own papers and book, and there is no significant third party coverage. The language has been mentioned in only a few papers, and a close looks at them show that the mentions are trivial. In most of these papers, Go! only appears as part of surveys of programming languages. Laurent (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's linked off the bottom of WP:N, but going back to policy WP:NB, WP:NF, WP:NM, and WP:WEB all cite the same policy that the notability be sourced from two non-trivial publications. No one would argue that the journals are not reliable or verifiable, but the fact is neither article is about the language itself and neither lists additional sourcing for notability. brontide (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
...and it wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the Google controversy. Laurent (talk)
My argument is that if it was created independently no one would have looked twice. We'll never know if it would have been created without the Google controversy, but that doesn't matter. The nobility is in the independent academic citations. --Capnchicken (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry, I got several edit conflicts at some point so I may have accidentally put my reply above yours. That wasn't intentional. My point regarding the Go naming issue is still the same - if the language is only notable because of Go (Google) then it should be in Go (programming language) and not in a separate article. Having appeared in a list of existing programming languages in one paper is not sufficient to establish notability. Laurent (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the journal article is not about Go!, it only deals with the language tangentially because of it's existence. Additional sources that are non-trivial are required to sustain notability. brontide (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, you seem to be doing him a huge favor then. Everyone keeps repeating "Go! is the second result on Google! How did Google not bother to Google the name of their new programming language!?" when the second result is this article, which was created yesterday, and there are just about no other hits on Google about Go! older than a few days. Marcan (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the page is not an attempt of the author to "make it notable." The author stated himself on the issue page: I want to make one particular point, some people have suggested that 'I should be grateful' for the extra advertising. My response to that is that I was not actively looking for this advertising."[1]--AM088(talk)16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(edit conflict) While I agree the naming issue is notable (and already appears in Go (programming language)), I don't think the language in itself is. We should document the event, not the subject of the event, in pretty much the same way we don't create article about a person just because they have been part of a notable event. Laurent (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Researchers have to make an extensive survey of their own field before starting their research. Being quoted once or twice, like Go!, as part of this kind of survey is very common and, in my opinion, doesn't establish notability. Laurent (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created at least two random special-purpose programming languages. If I released them, would they be notable? Heck no. I think the defining characteristic of a notable programming language is that people use it. This doesn't mean it needs to be popular for writing applications, but at least it needs to have some form of an user base. For example, Brainfuck is notable because it's a great example of an esoteric programming language and a turing tarpit, and many people program with it for the challenge or to learn about Turing machines, even though it's not practical for real-world usage. Marcan (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I said "most", not all. Go! is an academic language and has been written up in several journal articles. Your strawman languages have neither academic merit nor any userbase. --Cybercobra(talk)15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Between the two surveys listed there are hundreds of languages that are not on Wikipedia. Does inclusion alone on surveys mean that those languages are notable as well? Neither one of the surveys are about a specific language or even about arguing the merits of a specific language. My personal feeling is that it's like claiming that I am noteworthy because I'm listed in several phone books. brontide (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It is interesting to see that this article was created exactly when Google introduced a language with almost the same name. It is also interesting to see that some people want to delete this article immediate, while Google got an article for their language without problems. BTW: When you wonder why I made so few edits in Wikipedia: I don't like the way how articles get removed. My user page in the german Wikipedia had a factual explanation of my reasons, but this user page was deleted as well... Thomas Mertes (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. AFAIK the votes in AfD discussions are not counted. I just wanted to point out that some articles (about things coming from big companys) are more equal then others. Aside from the deletion of 'my' article I have a more liberal position regarding the deletion of articles. A lot of work is lost when articles are deleted. There should be another way to handle such issues. Thomas Mertes (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? It's not very likely someone is actually going to search for this is it now. I bet the only person who has found it is the author. I vote that you should all find something better to do with your time than arguing about whether to keep an utterly unnoteworthy article. 79.64.177.233 (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources for information about "Go!" are from one source, the author. Before "Issue 9" http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 their was no wiki page because their was no notability. Issue 9 was brought up by the author himself, not even by a third party. This controversy does not create suitable notability for inclusion of a self published work. Without some 3rd party notability of sufficient credibility this page should be deleted. The controversy should be kept, but the language itself requires a source besides the author himself. brontide (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion in survey papers might be enough to sustain bare notability since those sources only trivially relate to the topic. Remember that existence is not notability. Short of a third party source on the language itself, not attached to the controversy, I don't see how notability can be sustained. brontide (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per |Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Aside from being published in the author's own publications, it has only been mentioned briefly in a handful of publications in the same academic field. There are thousands of thousands of experimental new programming languages, algorithms, and mathematical theories published every year that never become notable, and Wikipedia doesn't need an article for each one of them. Before Tuesday's naming controversy started, there were no mentions of this language outside of an academic journal. --Jonovision (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reason of notability is the name collision with the Google language. Therefore Go! should be a just section in that article. If something (algorithm, programming language, data structure, whatever) is the topic of just a few very low ranked publications it does NOT deserve a wiki article. Otherwise thousands of scientists in search of citations will fill the wikipedia with their own minimal variants published somewhere. If something is subject of a highly cited work (e.g hundred or thousands of citations), then it is notable, not just because it have been published in some minor conference. Probably we should be careful to do not create a precedent. ALoopingIcon (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly the Internet is bulging and nearly full. If we allow room for the peer-reviewed science then where, exactly, are we supposed to detail the lives of reality television stars? BarryNorton (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The language is notable because of the collision with Google’s widely marketed new language. It serves the interest of the Wikipedia because people may be curious what the “other Go” language is about. The language is also notable because it articles about it have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, namely: Applied Intelligence, Informatica, and Computational Intelligence. Samboy (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t address the point that the article has been published in scientific journals. Can you show articles about subjects cited in peer-reviewed journals that did not survive AFD? Samboy (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quoting Wikipedia:Notability: "Determining notability does not *necessarily* depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." The Go! language is cited variously outside Wikipedia; the fact that most citations occur in academic journals is irrelevant, and judging the "quality" of a cited source goes far beyond the scope of the notability and deletion policies. — HaigEK (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)— HaigEK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just wondering, do you think all of the dozens of other technologies mentioned in the two survey articles that cite the original author's work also merit having Wikipedia articles? --Jonovision (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Again, this discussion is quickly becoming a "neener-neener" playground game. :( It goes like this "It's notable because it has been discussed in peer-reviewed scientific journals" "That doesn't establish notability" "Yes, it does" "No, it doesn't" "Yes, it does" ad Usenetium. But Wikipedia is not Usenet. So, again, can you find articles about topics discussed in peer-reviewed scientific journals that did not survive AFD? Can you show precedent here? Being in peer-reviewed scientific journals strongly establishes notability in the Wikipedia. Samboy (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why delete existing material because something new came along with the same name? What if someone creates a new language called 'Cheverolet'? Clay Lawrence — C1ay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I guess you haven't read any of the previous discussion since your comment is completely backward. For your information, the article was created (and not deleted) because something new came along with the same name. And it's nomination for deletion has nothing to do with the existence of another language with the same name. It's being nominated because it's not notable, not because "Go" exists. I'm starting to suspect that many of these votes are done by the same people "supporting" the language's author on issue 9. We are not here to protect the world from Google stealing names but to build an encyclopedia. Laurent (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For a bit more background, this article was created about 1 hour after someone mentioned on the issue 9 that there wasn't even a Wikipedia article for this langauge, and then the newly written article was in turn posted back to that thread and to various news sites. It seems pretty clear that the article was written to support claims of the language's notability. This deletion proposal definitely has nothing to do with a naming conflict, as Wikipedia has no problem handling ambiguous namings. --Jonovision (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a fairly interesting and unique language that is different from other commonly used languages. If it was just another iterative or functional language, I'd gladly vote for delete, but it's not. The page is well-written, and I think it should be kept. --AM088(talk)17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original language is technically interesting, and is now notable for its role in the language naming conflict with Google's language. It seems likely that the campaign to remove this page is sponsored by the creator of the more recent language or by an ally. It is a campaign that can be described as bullying or business-motivated aggression. An "evil" campaign if you will, and as such the removal should not be allowed to proceed. 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Hawthorne (talk • contribs)
Comment. This vote is flawed because it's becoming clear that many people here are voting in support for McCabe rather than because they think the topic is notable. Furthermore there is a link to the Wikipedia article on Issue 9 where the vast majority of users support McCabe. Laurent (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However there's evidence upon evidence of notability on the page now, completely independent of the survey articles (and certain people's lack of understanding of what these are). Just drop the AfD. Unless you have some ulterior motive... BarryNorton (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't have any ulterior motive, but I haven't been convinced with the arguments so far. Anybody having done academic research knows it's very common to be quoted in one or two papers, and it doesn't mean anything. It only starts to mean something when the research is very frequently quoted. Laurent (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As of yet, the article makes no claim to the notability of the language - it has received no significant coverage outside of articles (written by the language's author) in scientific journals. The language is not uninteresting, however that is not the issue at question. Unless sources can be provided documenting the significance of the language, I'm more convinced by the arguments in favor of deletion. My main issue with those advocating keeping the article is that they seem biased by the naming conflict with Google's Go. The conflict in itself does not warrant notability, outside of a mention in the article on Google's Go. The arguments also seem tainted by a desire to root for the underdog. I am not a Google shill and would very much like to see Go! take off. However, until it does, I see no reason to keep the article mikm18:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you stooges keep repeating "no significant coverage outside of articles (written by the language's author)"? It is pretty clear that there is a campaign here, and that the repetition of lies is being used to try to establish some credibility BarryNorton (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, there is no need for insults. I am not a Google shill any more than you are a shill for Mr. McCabe. The truth is, there is no significant coverage demonstrated in the article. If you can point me to something, I will be more than happy to change my mind. mikm18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why have you turned two third-party survey articles, including one long write-up in a well-known journal, and a clear statement of influence at an ACM language workshop into "no significant coverage outside of articles (written by the language's author)". Was this an oversight? Would you like to retract it? BarryNorton (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mention in a journal or survey does not indicate notability. There is no clear evidence that Go! has influenced Erlang in any significant way. Mikm 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment - There's been several misinformed comments about why this article was nominated for deletion, so I thought I'd summarize the arguments that have been made in favour of deletion for readers who are new to this discussion:
The language in question has only received cursory mentions in a few other survey publications. This language was an academic research project by two people, and hasn't had noticeable influence on later work. There's no indication that it is any more notable than the millions of other research projects undertaken every year by graduate students and other academics around the world.
I believe that the notability issue is key to this discussion, and I hope we can focus the discussion on that rather than make accusations about the motivations of people involved. --Jonovision (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Go! [12] is a multi-paradigm agent programming language, with a declarative subset of function and relation definitions, an imperative subset comprising action procedure definitions, and rich program structuring mechanism. Based on the symbolic programming language April [36], Go! extends it with knowledge representation features of logic programming, yielding a multi-threaded, strongly typed and higher order (in the functional-programming sense) language. Inherited from April, threads primarily communicate through asynchronous message passing. Threads, executing action rules, react to received messages using pattern matching and pattern-based message reaction rules. A communication daemon enables threads in different Go! processes to communicate transparently over a network. Typically, each agent will comprise several threads, each of which can directly communicate with threads in other agents. Threads within a single Go! process, hence in the same agent, can also communicate by manipulating shared cell or dynamic relation objects. As in Linda tuple stores, these elements are used to coordinate the activities of different threads within an agent. Go! is strongly typed, which can often reduce the programmer’s burden, and compiletime type checking improves code safety. New types can be declared and thereby new data constructors can be introduced. The design of Go! took into consideration critical issues such as security, transparency, and integrity, in regards to the adoption of logic programming technology. Features of Prolog that lack a transparent semantics, such as the cut (‘!’) were left out. In Prolog the same clause syntax is used both for defining relations, with a declarative semantics, and for defining procedures which only have an operational semantics. In Go!, behaviour is described using action rules that have a specialised syntax"
Please stop pasting that quote. It's a verbose description of the language in a much larger survey. The survey does not deal directly with the language Go! nor does it debate the particular merits of any one of the languages that it surveys. To me this is clearly a trivial mention of the language, not notability. brontide (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like it? How about this one, a clear statement of influence on agent modelling in Erlang, a language with a well-established Wikipedia page, from the ACM's Erlang Workshop BarryNorton (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC):[reply]
"As proposed in [Arthursson et al., 1997] and [Clark and McCabe, 2003] agents are implemented as groups of communicating processes. These processes can then perform specific tasks, such as communicating with other agents or performing computations. This is the natural way to design applications in Erlang and the language influenced the basic architecture of the agents."
Erlang is already notable, that does not make Go! notable by association. "Don't create a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article" brontide (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barry, I don't consider this to be notable. Academic journals require authors to look for and cite previous work, or risk being accused of plagiarism. For a journal article to have a handful of citations is merely proof that it was read by some other researchers in the same area. An example of what I would consider a notable language publication is something like Golog [2], with over 750 citations. --Jonovision (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jono, (I'm sure that's not your name but it's always so much more patronising to assume that you can use someone's first name, no?) I don't think you understand what a survey article is. Yes, when you write about your own work you are required to consider the related work, but someone writes a survey article deliberately and solely to cover the notable work in a given area BarryNorton (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the survey paper, "This paper surveys recent research on programming languages and development tools for Multi-Agent Systems. It starts by addressing programming languages (declarative, imperative, and hybrid), followed by integrated development environments, and finally platforms and frameworks." It sounds to me like the survey covers all of the recent developments within a very narrow area of research, and doesn't claim that it has chosen to highlight work of great importance. The fact that so many different technologies are included in the article only emphasizes the lack of Go!'s notability. Futhermore, I don't see any evidence that the publications of the "Slovenian Society Informatika" are highly read or influential. It's not like this was published in Nature or Science or The Lancet. --Jonovision (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed it when Golog was in Nature. Seriously, if you can't stick to one point (see also your slipperiness above of NOT) there's no profit in discussion BarryNorton (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to keep personal remarks about my debating skills out of this discussion. I think my comparison is valid: I consider Golog to be an example of a notable language (Over 750 citations in major publications like AI, Communications of the ACM, IEEE Intelligent Systems, and many textbooks). I don't consider Go! to be notable with 14 citations. Futhermore, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Informatica is not a serious publication in the area of computer languages. Their recent publications include "Late Fertility Trends in Europe", "Improving HTML Compression", "A System for Speaker Detection and Tracking in Audio Broadcast News". It looks like they have pretty low standards! --Jonovision (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you delete this article, you contribute in deleting 10 years work of Francis McCabe, and you help Google squatting the name of the programming language McCabe has invented. Not a wikipedia argument, but a humanist one. Or if your remove this page you remove also the Google Go Programming page until the issue9 is settled Alex Bouthors (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)— Ixtapa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
We don't keep articles on Wikipedia out of pity for someone. Perhaps it's bad what's happening to McCabe (or perhaps not) but in any case it cannot be a criteria to keep or delete this article. Please focus on the notability of the topic not on the naming controversy. Laurent (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm worried about the number of Keep votes done by editors with very low edit counts. I will probably have to mark some of these votes as coming from single-purpose accounts. Samboy (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What makes this language less notable than google's? Google has no outside important references, no journal or conference mentions, and no sign of any useful applications utilizing it unless I missed something. Google being notable does not make its language more notable than some scientist's. --Chrismiceli (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact all of Google's Go's footnotes, apart from the one on the naming controversy, are to golang.org (their own site), so I've proposed it for deletion BarryNorton (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources which directly review Go on Google News - [3]. We can't quite say the same thing about Go! since the few news about it only focus on the naming issue and not at all on the progrmaming language. Laurent (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started tagging some of the SPAs. As much as I'd like to AGF it's clear that many users are coming from Issue 9 or Slashdot to support the author of Go!. Laurent (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t like how this vote is being handled; having users with under 10 edits come out of the woodwork and vote “keep” is strange (must be some discussion board pointing to this page), and WP:AGF, WP:POINT and other policies are not being adhered to. Please, don’t make this too personal. For the record, the current vote count is 16 keep - 8 delete; for editors with over 100 edits it’s 6 keep - 7 delete (for over 1000 edits, the vote is 5 Keep - 3 Delete) Samboy (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Such single purpose accounts are generally disregarded, as are invalid arguments for/against (eg. some of the fuck google! type comments). As it says at the top of the page, a deletion discussion is a discussion - not a vote. I've seen deletions occur where a clear majority were against, but no valid case made. Jefffire (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not going to happen here. 1) There are mentions in peer-reviewed journals. 2) Keep has a majority at all edit count thresholds 3) The Google naming controversy also helps establish notability. Samboy (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been alluded to, this language has a longer and more historic track record than the Google language. I find the soft accusations of sock puppetry to be an ugly example of established editors not assuming good faith. If you want to ferret out sock puppets, there is a procedure for that. Aprock (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established by reliable sources. Even the naming controversy has contributed to the notability, frankly. Listing edit counts and counting !votes is not really appropriate. Nor is it necessary - the reviewing admin will base a keep/delete decision on more factors than simply raw voting numbers. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mention in a reliable source does not alone establish notability. Oblique mention in a reliable source is a prime example of where the source doesn't predicate notability. I think the argument has been sufficiently made that mentions of reliability are oblique in the references listed. — XSG00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The standards for notabilityare met, and increasing them arbitrarily due to the timing (the article was obviously triggered by Google's language, but so what?) is not a good precedent. --denny vrandečić (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — There isn’t, at this point, any chance the article will get deleted unless something radically changes. There’s been a lot of what I feel is pointless discussion about whether the peer-reviewed references are notable enough, which I hope has calmed down at this point. If I were a reviewing admin, I would say while there’s some doubt from a minority about how notable the peer-reviewed mentions are, there isn’t any clear consensus they aren't notable, and close it as “keep” (simple majority says keep, and right now keep has a majority for all edit count thresholds). Samboy (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about reference notability has "calmed down" in that nobody wants to engage in a real discussion about what is notable, and are satisfied repeating that "It's published in a journal, and referenced a couple of times, therefore it's notable". That's a complete sham, as it would mean every academic's pet research project is worthy of being included in Wikipedia (This is an ongoing issue on Wikipedia, as is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)). I should be much easier to provide evidence of a journal being notable than of it NOT being notable (since nobody would be talking about a non-notable journal). Seeing as the justification for this article existing depends on a tiny number of secondary sources (3 mentioned here, 2 of which are survey articles), I think it should be up to the folks on the keep side to show that these few sources are really worth something. --Jonovision (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the record, I feel that every academic's pet project does deserve a Wikipedia article, if published or cited in a notable peer-reviewed journal. If I can find cites for it over at scholar.google.com, my vote for the article is keep. No exceptions. Why does it benefit the Wikipedia to delete this kind of useful knowledge? Samboy (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your profile that you're a programmer like me, and I think we have a tendency to overestimate the value of articles from our own area. Do you really think it would be good if every architecture student had an article for buildings they designed but never built? And every physicist with an article for theories they suggested that never were proven? An article for every political science PhD who proposed a slightly different voting system? I think this kind of thinking leads towards WP:EVERYTHING. --Jonovision (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at my profile. I think deletion policy should be used to stop vanity pages, patent nonsense (for example, I removed a lot of nonsense from the Super Audio CD article) and spam. If an idea is physics holds enough water to get published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, it belongs here. I’m not talking about a thought experiment I may have about the nature of the universe while taking a walk; I’m talking about a theory of the universe held by someone knowledgeable about physics that passed the muster of other physicists reading their scientific paper well enough to get in to a peer-reviewed journal. Architecture is (by and large) art, not science, and I can’t see how something like a design for a building getting in to a peer-reviewed article unless it has scientific value. You know, this may be something to bring up at the village pump (I don’t post there, as a general rule) Samboy (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, you let him off lightly there. He jumped from 'peer-reviewed journal' to 'unproven theory' and 'unbuilt building' in exactly the disingenuous style of argumentation that's been used all day BarryNorton (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't actually know if architects publish stuff in journals, it was just a hypothetical example. Barry, I don't know why you think I'm being insincere. I'm not just trying to throw out any argument for the sake of getting this article deleted. I genuinely believe that this type of article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Obviously, generalizing my argument to all academic fields isn't helping demonstrate my argument that we'd be allowing too much stuff into Wikipedia by using the existance of peer-reviewed articles as a notability test. So, Let me give some more concrete examples. There are new experimental languages being proposed all the time. Here are a few examples of languages which have a similar notability level as Go!: [4], [5], [6]. I can't begin to count how many of these exist. Furthermore, there are dozens of conferences and journals where new languages, language extensions, language features are constantly being proposed (Just to name a few conferences: Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems; Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications; Programming Language Design and Implementation; Principles of Programming Languages). If we're going to include every experimental language, why not new language or compiler features that are introduced in journals? Unless Wikipedia is really about everything, the sheer volume of material being produced precludes all of it from being notable. --Jonovision (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Jono', do you think that no programming languages should be included on Wikipedia at all? If not, can you please give some precent on Wikipedia to back up your position on removal, instead of making yourself an authority? Or at least a suggestion for some objective repeatable criterion? BarryNorton (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this discussion is moving towards working on an objective measure of what notability is. Factors which could affect language notability are: size of the user community; number and quality of implementations; existence of derivative languages; amount of written material about the language; historical value. I think for a language to be notable, it should be strong it at least two of these areas.
An example I suggested above is Golog, so let's look at how it ranks on these measures. User community: at minimum the 20 people listed as part of the core research group. Two versions of the interpreter, at least 3 derivative languages (ConGolog, IndiGolog, LeGolog). Written material: over 750 citations of the original paper; two books published by MIT Press; many recent publications [7]. This language does not have a Wikipedia article, but if it did, I certainly wouldn't oppose it.
Next example: Capuirequiem, an esoteric programming language. User community: no evidence of any user community. Implementations: one, not maintained since 2006. Written material: a description from the original author, a few mentions on language sites. No historical value. This is definitely not a notable language, and doesn't merit a Wikipedia article.
DCWPL, "a programming language for describing collaborative work". User community: no evidence of any user community. Implementations: some papers on DCWPL imply that there once was some type of implementation, but it appears to no longer be available. Written material: About 50 papers citing the original research; no papers from the original author in the last ten years. While the original paper sparked a little bit of interest, it appears that work on this language has long been abandoned. A recent citation of the original paper is a cursory acknowledgement in the "Related Work" section of a master's thesis [8]. I don't consider this to be a notable language.
Finally, let's look at Go! User community: no evidence of any user community. Implementations: author's original implementation, not maintained since 2007. Written material: 14 citations of the original paper, all cursory mentions. Does not appear to have any influence on later work, and no derivative languages. I don't consider this to be a notable language. --Jonovision (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me acknowledge that you have tried here. However. I asked for precedent and you've cited two languages with fewer/less notable publications and citations, and not given the details of their (presumable?) deletion from Wikipedia. Could you instead present a language with a similar degree of representation in the academic literature (at least two journal publication as explicit subject, a book, inclusion in two journal surveys, Web mention of a prominent presentation like Frank's at SRI) and the details of its deletion from Wikipedia. That would be relevant precedent. BarryNorton (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but my comment not an attempt to give precedents based on other Wikipedia articles or previous deletions, and I don't have any interest in making such arguments. --Jonovision (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no accusations that you are a sock puppet; saying “this user has only 10 edits on the Wikipedia” and “This user is a sock puppet” are different things. Anyway, it’s academic; the article is Keep for all edit count thresholds. Samboy (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See what I'm talking about Samboy? We're getting Keep voters that don't even understand why the article was nominated for deletion. Nobody has claimed that this didn't have references to support its existence. --Jonovision (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they're going on the introduction at the top of this page which: i) lies "the article seems to be entirely sourced off the author's own publications"; ii) suggests that the article is only motivated by the naming controversy. You can hardly blame people! BarryNorton (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I re-read that and it is totally wrong. I agree that we should close this discussion ASAP, no point wasting people's time in refuting the obviously erroneous introduction. --Jonovision (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's much point, since many voters already said keep based on the original intro. If there's still people who still want to debate notability (I'm up for it!:) ), I'd rather close this nomination and start a fresh one. --Jonovision (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closing admin will take all of this into consideration. Closing this debate is not going to be taken lightly. Often, an article changes sufficiently during the process of an RfD such that the RfD nomination appears to be patently untrue when being closed, and this doesn't make the nomination nor the debate any less valid. — XSG00:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears from the timing of the introduction of this article that the basis for its inclusion in Wikipedia was the coincidental naming of Google's product. I ask myself, "if Google hadn't named their programming language 'Go', would this article exist in Wikipedia presently?" Because the Go! programming language is no more notable today than it was a week ago, I'd be inclined to suspect that it wouldn't. I don't think Go!'s notability is anything but temporary at this point in time: all references are either oblique or regarding the naming controversy (which should be included on the Google Go programming langue page, should that language be notable enough for inclusion), and because Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, we should not be predicting whether it will become notable in the future. — XSG00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be more useful to argue notability based on the sources. Arguing that it's not notable because it wasn't in wikipedia seems a bit circular. Aprock (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does that address the inclusion criteria and notability? How much resources an article takes up does not determine whether it should be deleted. (If it did, I could create a new page that said nothing but "poop", and keep it from being deleted by pointing out that it takes up very few resources.) rʨanaɢtalk/contribs12:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Are you out of your mind? There are many articles published in many international computational intelligence(many of them also publish in paper) magazines. If a peer reviwed article is not good enough then I wonder what is. This begs the question of if anyone here is doing googles work.85.139.203.108 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)— 85.139.203.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for reasons of fairnes (I know that wikipedia denies fairness but I still ask for it). The deletion discussion about Googles language (see Go deletion discussion) got a speedy keep with arguments like "secondary sources are highly likely to become available in the near future" and "Even if go doesn't become a popular language, this article is still important for the historical record". I think this is because a big big company introduced Go. In the Go! deletion discussion articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals are seen as uninportant. There are double standards when it comes to programming languages.
This double standards can be seen also for Seed7 which got a speedy deletion at (15 August 2008) although there was new evidence (see Requested articles about computer languages). In the first Seed7 deletion discussion the arguments of the keepers where just ignored. The arguments of Kavadi carrier who was active in deletion discussions and elsewhere for almost 24 hours had a big influence. Later the user page of "Kavadi carrier" said for some time something like (IIRC) "convicted socket puppeteer". Now the user page of "Kavadi carrier" points to Kimchi.sg who (surprise, surprise) did also the speedy delete of Seed7 in 2008. Raise exception (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is at least as relevant as the Google language, and actually has more academic references than the google language. The google language got a speedy keep when it was suggested for deletion. — 71.93.61.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Then could you perhaps make a coherent argument for deletion. One that doesn't equally apply to the article on Google's Go in its current state (which you do nothing about, despite your incessant posting on the subject)? BarryNorton (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Laurent? Despite your having already changed the text above yesterday it still says: "Most of the article is sourced off the author's own papers and book, and there is no significant third party coverage. The language has been mentioned in only a few papers, and a close looks at them show that the mentions are trivial. In most of these papers, Go! only appears as part of surveys of programming languages." The Google Go article is entirely based on golang.org, there's only one third party link and it's been mentioned in no papers, surveys or otherwise. Why should Google Go stay and this be deleted? Please answer. BarryNorton (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought in three sources during the Go AfD discussion but, for some reasons, you chose to ignore them. I've now put these sources in the article itself so hopefully we are done with the Go/Go! comparison. Laurent (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Laurent, discussing Google Go vs. Go! here isn't very relevant (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). However, since I've suggested an objective way of looking at language notability, I'll apply it to Google Go. My criteria are: size of the user community; number and quality of implementations; existence of derivative languages; amount of written material about the language; historical value. I propose that a language should be strong in at least two of these areas to be considered notable. Google go stacks up well. User community: many new users current testing out the language (as evidenced by numerous blog reviews). Implementations: two separate implementations, gccgo and 6g/8g/5g, both actively being developed; testing and other side tools also available. Written material: no journal publications yet, but technical presentations from Rob Pike, extensive documentation, widely reviewed by tech bloggers. Historical value: very high, Ken Thompson (Turing Award, National Medal of Technology winner!) and Rob Pike are involved. --Jonovision (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about writing that up and tagging as an article on notability. It sounds like a good start for programming topics in general, not just languages. Especially for edge cases where "traditional" notability application does not seem to make sense. brontide (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I just point out that no one labelled the article with {{notability}} before proposing its deletion. I hope the editors concerned will follow proper procedure in future. BarryNorton (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is anyone willing to give an appropriate precedent for a programming language with the same level of notability in the academic literature as Go! being deleted? BarryNorton (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTLAW says "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected" - how does that not support looking for the existing precedent? BarryNorton (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to find precedent, however I couldn't find precedent for a deletion discussion about any previous programming language. Google was helpful with this search: "site:wikipedia.org inurl:Programming_Language inurl:Articles_for_deletion". Interestingly, I do find a bunch of programming languages that exist on Wikipedia that are probably just as non-notable as Go! (again, Google was helpful with this search: "site:wikipedia.org inurl:Programming_Language" and scrolling back just a few (say, 10) pages). Perhaps there's more pruning to be done on Wikipedia? — XSG21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find XSG! I'm currently having a look at the MKR deletion debate. I thought this thread was starting to get a wee bit heated, but wow, that one really got out of hand, LOL! I just wanna say thanks to everyone for keeping things civil. :) It's a lengthy debate, and I'm currently reading through it to see if there's any valuable ideas that will help us understand why it was deleted. I'll post a summary soon! --Jonovision (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, 'dude', that's just a list over which you've made absolutely no effort to ascertain the academic notability. I'm thoroughly sick of this argument now and will take a back seat until this decision is made. My last word, though, is that I feel no one would even be trying to delete the article if it weren't for the Google language, and that makes the attempted deletion just as bad as the incorrect assumption that that the only reason I added it BarryNorton (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to learn from the MKR debate, actually. About 95% of it is flaming and arguing over procedure. In the end, though, they did agree that lack of good quality secondary sources did matter, and the article was deleted. --Jonovision (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying "there are many sources" and "the article does not fail WP:NOTABILITY" doesn't really help the discussion. Not only there are in fact very few secondary sources for Go! but none of them fulfil the "Significant coverage" criterion of the notability policy. Sources should address the subject directly in detail. Laurent (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the coverage of Go! in independent sources is significant. That seems to be the crux. You think it's not, when in fact it is. Aprock (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've been discussing the sources in quite a bit of detail, so it would be helpful if you could actually discuss how the policy could be applied, rather than turning this into a "Yes it is! No it isn't!" argument. See What notability is not. Specifically, "The significance of coverage, reliability of sources and the independence of the sources are all issues which should be explored within a deletion debate, not simply contended by an editor". I've proposed a pretty detailed set of criteria to measure language notability above, and spent a lot of giving examples of how those criteria could apply to different languages. I'd appreciate any comment or counter-proposal. --Jonovision (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't agree with your criteria. It's a special purpose language for a specific domain. Within that domain, it's been significant enough to be cataloged for future reference, and outside that domain it was interesting enough to warrant discussion in the context of developing the Erlang language. Finally, the Google kerfuffle adds to the notability. The language is both historic and a current topic. Aprock (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Erlang reference is a textbook example of non-significant coverage by a secondary source, and should absolutely not be considered as an example of notability. Go! is not even mentioned in the article body, only a single footnote. According to the example from WP:N, a "one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial." --Jonovision (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was never supposed to establish notability. A journal paper, two conference papers (http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/m/McCabe:Francis_G=.html) and its inclusion in two journal reviews are sufficient to establish notability. The Erlang workshop paper was intended to show Go!'s influence on other (notable) languages, when challenged that it has had no such influence. This is shown, despite the application of an inappropriate guideline (coupled with lack of experience in reading academic text). This is truly my last edit to this page. BarryNorton (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be a more reasonable interpretation of the situation. If the only citation of Go! were from the Erlang footnote, then I would think it not relevant. But that's not the only citation. Aprock (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not decided where I stand on this article, but just to comment on your comment... the Informatica reference is a large survey of programming languages and only has a small section (3 small paragraphs) about Go!. That doesn't necessarily mean it's trivial; it just means that it's understandable why some people say it's not significant enough and other people say it is. So I don't see it as being a knock-down argument; it's something that both keep and delete voters can interpret in different way, while still being perfectly honest. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs01:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Wikipedia is a reference for public. It doesn't matter if "Go" is a good programing language or not. Equally it does not matter if we need a new programing language or not. "Go" is already out there and Wikipeda should have a reference to it. Article may be biased but this is hardly a reason for deletion. 198.53.250.44 (talk) 13 November 2009
Keep. Several academic references, some of them with reasonable (10-20ish) outside references. Maybe without Google Go this would not have been created - but a lot of relevant and notable topics are not covered in WIkipedia yet. Certainly without Google Go this would never have been proposed for deletion, either (even if we now may get a number of WP:POINTy followup proposals. The current Go-Go! debate only adds to notability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2009 (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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go! (programming language)
