Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ooc

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.

The result was delete. Nakon 07:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooc

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

Unnotable programming language. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT. ― Padenton|✉ 15:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. —Ruud 11:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was briefly covered, along some side projects written in it on this article: https://github.com/blog/546-github-rebase-30

Did a presentation on OSCON (hosted on oreillystatic): http://cdn.oreillystatic.com/en/assets/1/event/45/ooc%20-A%20Hybrid%20Language%20Experiment%20Presentation.pdf Caroliano (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one passing mention in a blog post and one (non-invited) presentation by the author help it come close to passing WP:GNG. —Ruud 14:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hopeless stub somehow missed a speedy or PROD ending up here for a serious "kill spam on sight". @Caroliano: thanks for your list on a talk page, but please check WP:NOT again. There used to be a sentence about "wikipedia is not about what you made up in school" or similar, and making up a programming language isn't much better. One presentation isn't good enough if it got no traction, same idea why an "Internet Draft" is not the same as an RFC, and many RFCs are no standards. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not mine. I first saw Ooc sometime ago outside Wikipedia (I think on a discussion on IRC), and it got veeery little but still some traction, and is still alive. This is much more than a school project, and represents a valid design point in the programming languages landscape. Even if its not notable on it's own, I argue that it could be merged in some other article. Caroliano (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time I've told you in the deletion discussions you've now stalked me to: Some random person's Github doesn't count for notability. That github shows 25 contributors, only half of which have more than 10 commits. It's not notable. Stop stalking me to other deletion discussions just because you want every programming language created by anyone to be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day ― Padenton|✉ 20:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't intend to stalk you. I posted in your talk page to request assistance on the appropriate place where to put that discussion (I still don't know), as I thought you were an administrator/experienced user that could help me with that. As for what deletion discussions I chose to enter, I was now chasing programming language deletions, not you. Sorry if you got the wrong impression. As for the github link, I know it don't count as a notability source per wikipedia rules, but I do think it provides relevant information to the discussion. And I do not agree that Ooc fits on WP:NOTMADEUP, as this stub can be sufficiently covered by reliable sources (the small github blog post). Caroliano (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Github, Google code, SourceForge etc. host software projects, I have accounts on these sites for bug reports. Some of these projects are notable, others are not, and many are in limbo between mostly dead and could have been notable, but never made it to a stable release. Wikipedia cannot list all books sold by Amazon at some point in time, it also cannot list all software projects hosted by Github. Most experiments fail, that is the purpose of experiments in science, but unless the failure was spectacular no reason for an article here. There are reasons why nobody touched Hope (programming language) in your list, or why I agree with your merge idea for Join-calculus (programming language) (target TBD). But a merge suggestion without target doesn't really help. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2015 (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.