Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lava (programming language)

Lava (programming language)

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

PROD contested with no reason given. No outside verifiable significant sources that establish notability for inclusion. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of transparency, I should probably point out that for the same reasons I nominated

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This article might pass as a reliable source (depending on the amount of editorial review the magazine has), but it is written by the author of the language, so on its own does not give sufficient evidence of independent notability. —Ruud 13:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would anyone be interested in starting a Programming Languages Wikia? —Ruud 13:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Might I suggest asking the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Programming languages? Sophus Bie ^(talk) 09:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:guenthk

The Lava home page has been visited by thousands of people from all over the world. Most of them came from the wikipedia article, and many of them have downloaded papers and/or software from the Lava download page then. See also the Wikipedia article traffic statistics. In my opinion this is strong and most objective evidence for the notability of the article.

Although Lava isn't promoted by a powerful enterprise or institution, it may nevertheless play a role as a source of inspiration for other language development projects, as you can see, for instance, from the corresponding links in the article and from a statement of Justin Rosenstein that has reached us recently:

"... Yes!, still a huge fan of Lava, and it was a big inspiration for Luna in many subtle ways. I would like Lunascript to move more and more to be like Lava over time (up to and including visual editing). ..."

So I think it would be a real pity if this source of inspiration would be withheld from the wikipedia users.

guenthk (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There appears to be plenty of coverage in reliable sources from a Google Books search, e.g. this, this, and this, or is this a different Lava?.--Michig (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't read the first source. The second and third are definitely about a different language called Lava (namely this one). —Ruud 13:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Big Dom 20:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]