Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoffeeScript

CoffeeScript

WP:N CoffeScript does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, specifically coverage from someone independent from the source. Some tech blogs have written about it and it has been on Hacker News a few times, that is about it. In addition the article reads like an advertisement for the 'language'. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that the coverage at this point is primarily from tech blogs, but for a year-old programming language, CoffeeScript is exceptionally notable. The only way for a programming language to draw mainstream press in its early years is to be associated with a major tech company (see: Google Go). Brendan Eich, the creator of JavaScript, has spoken favorably about CoffeeScript, and suggested that it may influence the next generation of JavaScript. David Heinemeier Hansson, the creator of Ruby on Rails, has both praised it and used it for real projects at 37signals, an exceptionally influential tech company. As to the article being an advertisement: I'm the primary author, and it's true that I like CoffeeScript. I apologize if my enthusiasm gives the article a bit of a cheerleader inflection. But this isn't a case of a language's creator, or their friend, putting up an article to promote their pet project. This is a case of someone finding a language useful, expecting it to have a big future, and being surprised that there was no Wikipedia article on it. Trevor Burnham (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Brendan Eich can lead into two lengthy posts about the future of Javascript with a reference to it, and the respondents don't have to ask what he's talking about, that's a pretty good sign it's already achieved some level of notability. The notability guidelines are horribly broken when applied to programming languages - real working programmers don't necessarily publish in what Wikipedia considers authoritative sources. --Jfager (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over 400,000 Google results for +CoffeeScript and it is well known in the programming world. Further, I question the nominator's objectivity on this issue as he quoted the word "language" as if to imply CoffeeScript isn't one (when there is no doubt that it is). Briancollins (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]