Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obix programming language

Obix programming language

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

Appears to be a relatively new programming language. Can't tell the age. Can't tell notability of this, either. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks:Programming languages bookshelf. The source provided doesn't establish notability all by itself, but the content is a good summary that could be kept outside Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found in-depth coverage in one independent reliable source: John Knight (February 2012), "New Projects: Fresh from the Labs", Linux Journal, 2012 (214): 62–65 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help). Not enough to pass WP:GNG, but close. As to the age, the online Obix programming language documentation has "Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011", so the language has apparently been under development for several years, but as recently as June 3, 2011, its designer wrote: "Obix is still in beta version". --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of programming languages displayed in the following Wikipedia pages (and others too) are currently missing the Obix programming language: List of programming languages, List of programming languages by category, List of open-source programming languages. Instead of merely adding external links I created the 'Obix programming language' article, so that Wikipedia links (instead of external links) can be inserted in these lists and thus make them more complete. It is true that Obix isn't yet a famous programming language but this is also true (IMHO) for a number of other programming languages which are mentioned in the lists and which have their own Wikipedia page. I also thought that the reference to the article in Linux Journal makes Obix notable (at least to a certain degree) because Linux Journal itself is notable (otherwise it wouldn't have a Wikipedia page). To increase notability I added the following references to the article: Open-source project announcement on Coding forums, Maxtina Fernando (January 2012), "Obix Programing Language" (PDF), FOSS User Magazine, 2012: 25. I am an absolute Wikipedia newbie, so please correct me if my reasonings are wrong. Obligato17 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We can, obviously, not have an article for every possible conceivable topic. As a criterion whether a topic is important enough to have its own article, we use the criterion of notability, for which the litmus test is whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here, multiple sources are generally expected; lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may perhaps be suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic, but does not warrant a separate article. It is not clear that the two sources you added fit our notion of reliability. In fact, it is obvious that the announcement on Coding forums does not qualify; for FOSS User Magazine it depends largely on whether the editorial board consists of qualified experts who exercise quality control before submissions are accepted, such as by peer review. Although I did not understand the Tamil text on submissions, I doubt this is the case. --Lambiam 13:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki We can transwiki the page becuase the articles nobility isnt very high bu high. And it could work better in a new wiki. Or we just leave it where it is and let some more people edit it.Algamicagrat (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]