Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Despite the walls of text, there are only two "keep" advocates: Charmk, who wrote the walls of text, and thereby made me invent the AfD closing principle that the weight of an argument is inversely proportional to the length at which it is expressed. And Ak7324835, who is a WP:SPA with ten edits. Sandstein 19:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ring (programming language)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ring (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N from the talk page, and also WP:TOOSOON. Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. This language is developed by Ring Team : Fayed, Mariani, Zsolt, Rosado & Esteban (To know the primary resources). Some of references that I discovered and added to the article.

Reference Author Publisher Type Scope Year
[1] Omnia Youm7 (Printed Journal) Secondary source PWCT, Supernova 2011
[2] Hany Salah Youm7 (Printed Journal) Secondary source Ring, PWCT 2016
[3] Mones Hawas Youm7 (Printed Journal) Secondary source PWCT, Ring 2016
[4] Mones Hawas Youm7 (Printed Journal) Secondary source PWCT, Ring 2018
[5] Omar Selim BIMArabia (Printed Magazine) Secondary source Ring 2018
[6] MR Team Muslim Researchers (Magazine) Secondary source Ring, PWCT 2016
[7] AL-AALEM Team AL-AALEMMagazine, Issue No. 116, Pages 26-27. Secondary source PWCT 2008
[8] Computer Total Team Computer!Totaal (Printed Magazine) Secondary source PWCT 2018
[9] AMBASTHA S EFY_Group (Printed Magazine) - October 2014 - Article + DVD Secondary source PWCT 2014
[10] Hend Al-Khalifa Al_Riyadh_(newspaper) (Printed Journal) Secondary source PWCT 2008
[11] Khaled Almesahuge Al_Riyadh_(newspaper) (Printed Journal) Secondary source PWCT 2010
[12] Naglaa Elsayed Al_Gomhuria (Printed Journal - Offline Source) Secondary source PWCT 2009
[13] Rubin Liu Code Project (Reviewed Technical Article) Secondary source Ring 2017
[14] Majdi Sobain Code Project (Reviewed Technical Article) Secondary source Ring 2016
[15] Ciklum Team Ciklum Secondary source Ring 2017
[16] TIOBE Index Team (Top 50 in Feb. 2018) TIOBE_index Secondary source Ring 2018
[17] Fayed, Al-Qurishi, Alamri, Aldariseh Association_for_Computing_Machinery Primary source PWCT, Ring 2017
[18] Fayed King_Saud_University Primary source PWCT, Ring 2017
[19] Ring Team (The Language Reference, 2111 pages) Ring Team Primary source Ring 2019

Also the article could be improved to add more content and references. Charmk (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The newly created Popularity section shouldn't mention TIOBE, since Wikipedia is a dependency; the Ring marketing team is good at SEO optimisation, but not anything else really. The rest isn't WP:NEUTRAL! Medium says "Ring itself is an unpopular language that does not offer much for non-programmers.". Ciklum says "many developers perceive Ring as being too similar to other programming languages already in existence; in other words, it doesn’t offer anything innovative.". This language may be WP:N for being the most ambitious job exploitation (I'm aware of), but the article should reflect the below average quality of the language. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporal Interval Download Quantity Ring Version(s)
2016-01-25 1,870 1.0
2016-01-25+to+2017-01-25 17,688 1.0, 1.1, 1.2
2017-01-25+to+2018-01-25 13,443 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7
2018-01-25+to+2019-01-25 8,885 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10
2019-01-25+to+2019-06-11* 2,662 1.10
2019-06-11 13 1.10
  • This is sufficient evidence of a declining popularity; there's probably a lot of Egyptian click bait for this language. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the article topic cover the Ring programming language and related projects (Supernova and PWCT), and you listed a table about Ring downloads from Sourceforge, I will share this table about PWCT downloads, but remember that in this discussion about notability, we don't care much about downloads, I just included this information for you to know more about the article topic since you are very active in this discussion. Ring source code and visual source is distributed with PWCT.
Temporal Interval Download Quantity Version
[24] 14,097 1.7
[25] 96,490 1.8
[26] 261,343 1.9
[27] 21,322,969 All versions + Samples + Tutorials
Charmk (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This language may be WP:N " Yes, This language is WP:N according to Wikipedia notability guidelines Charmk (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the reason I gave, or are you quoting out of context? -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • For another reason, At first let me tell you that the reason you said "the most ambitious job exploitation (I'm aware of)" is just an indicator that reflects your opinion about the hard word involved in developing this language, The same as your table about downloads, is just another indicator. In Wikipedia we follow guidelines. In my opinion : This language is WP:N according to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Summary Article Topic : A programming language called Ring and related projects (Supernova and PWCT). The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. I provided some references (more references could be added) as a prove that the article topic is notable. This is enough to establish notability, but since Your comments reflects that you are interested with the language quality (since you said: "the article should reflect the below average quality of the language") I could say It's the first language (I'm aware of) that are distributed with Visual Programming implementation of the Compiler and the Virtual Machine. Also it's the first language (I'm aware of) that provide new ideas for developing natural languages, Also it could be used in prototyping applications, but this is outside the scope of this discussion. Also see the Critics section that I added to the article. I tried to improve it based on your useful feedback.Along the time we could improve this Wikipedia Article with more content and resources. Charmk (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "there's probably a lot of Egyptian click bait for this language" No, A lot of Egyptian developers known about this language and were waiting for it's release date that is announced to be in 2016.01.25 (In the same day as the Egyptian Revolution), Articles about the language before the first release includes [28] [29], Before these news Fayed, used the Social Media to promote the language to his followers (over 30,000 followers). This is a Facebook post about the language before the first release [30] and this is another one in the release day [31], This explain the interest from many Egyptian programmers.Charmk (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the table to include the version of the language during each temporal interval, which further diminishes the popularity of the language. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was a tree language, it would probably be notable for being the first of its' kind, but tree languages are purely theoretical, and I'm not sure about the (over)ambitious predictions made regarding their future; the first two could be like Turing-completeness (a certain amount of supercritical complexity may be problematic for tree notation), the third one is very challenging (legacy code makes the industry less likely to change languages; changing languages means replacing programmers, and code base, which is expensive), and the last one is confusing (I thought tree languages are high level abstract languages, but they don't go into specifics of levelness, nor abstraction;, and perhaps this is an opportunity to unify all programmers as predicted). -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to the Ring Team page - 2019.06.16 in the Ring website, the page contains 5 members in Ring Team (Fayed, Mariani, Zsolt, Rosado & Esteban), Any reference in this Wikipedia article includes any of these 5 names is a primary source. The other names in the Ring Team page got (Thanks) from Ring Team for providing good secondary resources about the language or for submitting bug reports. Charmk (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The addition of sources makes a more persuasive argument for 'Keep.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak7324835 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is updated to establish notability using printed journals, magazines and reviewed articles. I will not repeat them again. The table in the top list some of these resources. Also, the article topic (Ring and related projects : Supernova and PWCT) are open source project and from [32] we notice "The way the app is distributed. It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown.". So we have more options too. Charmk (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your effort in improving this article. But please do not rush to close the discussion, which would hinder the generation of clearer consensus. I've striken my previous vote for deletion, but I still hesitate whether to vote for keep before further identifying those sources and knowing others' opinions. Let's be patient and see how it goes. By the way, please do not cite too many primary sources ( en.wikibooks/rosettacode/GitHub/Quora/reddit/Sourceforge/Steam/Youtube/Wordpress). --94rain Talk 01:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting is not an opportunity to !vote again. If you want to amend your earlier 'keep' recommendation you can edit your comment and strikethrough the previous text. Colin M (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is almost impossible to evaluate due to the huge walls of text. Could those who want to keep this article perhaps just list the three best sources on which their argument for notability is based? After all, three good independent references to reliable sources is all we need.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary Article Topic : A programming language called Ring and related projects (Supernova and PWCT).
Index Publisher References Type Comment
1 Association_for_Computing_Machinery, King_Saud_University, etc [33][34][35][36] Primary sources Free Open Source

Language Reference (2111 pages)

Master Thesis (120 pages)

Research Paper

2 Code Project, Ciklum, TIOBE_index, etc (Reviewed Technical Articles) [37][38][39][40][41][42] Secondary sources Technical Information

Evolution (From release to release)

Popularity

Critics

3 Computer!Totaal, EFY_Group (October 2014 - Article + DVD), BIMArabia, etc (Printed Magazines) [43][44][45][46][47][48] Secondary sources Ring and related projects (Supernova, PWCT) as development tools related to Natural Language Programming and Visual Programming Languages.
4 Youm7, Al_Gomhuria, Al_Riyadh_(newspaper), etc (Printed Journals) [49][50][51][52][53][54][55] Secondary sources Ring and related projects (Supernova, PWCT)

Charmk (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It feels like there are editors of the Ring article doing whatever they can to make Ring appear significant, and the burden is on the readers to sort it all out. Dgpop (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your feelings, but in Wikipedia we follow guidelines, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Maybe it's the language barriers because some of these resources are written in Arabic.Charmk (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main issue here is, your walls of text don´t demonstrate notability, quite the opposite (ref bombing). If you could select only 3 best sources (not more!!!), so we can review them, that would certainly help. Pavlor (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you very much, The article topic is about Ring and related projects (Supernova, PWCT). An article about this topic requires more references to cover each section (Ring, Supernova, PWCT). I could pick three good references about PWCT from research papers and printed magazines : [56][57][58]. and I could pick these good references about Ring : [59][60][61][62][63]. All of these references together demonstrates the notability of the article topic, but please don't ignore the table above which contains more references too. I tried to be positive and updated the article and added the references, I invested a lot of time and I started to fell that I'm tired and I think this is enough for me at least for now, In my opinion, Keeping the article is the right decision according to Wikipedia guidelines, but I will let the others decide what is good for this article and for Wikipedia. Thanks Charmk (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. Please select only 3 best sources about Ring. Thanks. Pavlor (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did, references from the same publisher are counted as (one reference), So I picked only 3 references for PWCT and the same for Ring, and together they are the article topic (Ring and related projects (Supernova, PWCT)). The references that I picked are enough for notability, and we have more references in the table above (if we need). Thank you very much Charmk (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your five refs about Ring: Code Project accepts user submited content - not a RS; general reliability of youm7 was disputed above by Colin M and I share his feeling; BIMArabia seems to publish anything you throw at them, but I can´t base my judgement on Google translate. Certainly not stellar sourcing in your selection. I´m leaning to delete. Pavlor (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • Articles in CodeProject are reviewed articles, CodeProject Editors review each article before publication. Charmk (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • The Youm7 articles indicates that Ring and PWCT are related projects and this Wikipedia article cover both of them, Also there are 4 articles in Youm7 by 3 different authors in different years (2011, 2016, 2018), not only one author (Ignoring these articles based on feelings is not fair). The BIMArabia article is 3 pages (printed magazine), Also the other resources about PWCT like [64][65][66] are enough for notability. (And there are more resources in the table). Charmk (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Your approach certainly is not helping. I will give you one last chance: Select one (ONLY ONE = 1) source about Ring (not anything else) you think is best (eg. magazine with editorial staff, respected publisher, independent on the article subject, broad coverage of the article subject). I will review this source and decide for myself. Note more than one reliable source are required to satisfy GNG, but one really good source is enough for me to reconsider my choice. Your turn. Pavlor (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Why you are talking to me in this way? I am not an employee under your control!, Also I don't care at all about your opinion which is based on feelings and ignoring references listed above (You don't like to invest your time, and my time is valuable too), I just shared my opinion about this topic, updated the article, listed references, I did what I think is useful for Wikipedia, and this is enough for me. Thanks Charmk (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 10 righteous people could save one city, 1 single source could save this article. If there is not at least one good source to discuss, then there is no policy based reason to keep this article. Pavlor (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are resources listed in the table above, but you are ignoring them because You want to vote without investing time to evaluate resources (which is not recommended), (You ignored 4 articles in Youm7 based on feelings ! NOT FAIR). Also you ignored articles in printed magazine because you don't know Arabic Charmk (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with listing 23 sources instead of 3 (as you did in the 'summary' table above), is that if someone spends some time scrutinizing one of those sources and comes back with reasons it's not reliable, you can just say "well there are still 22 other sources!". Editors at AfD are generally not going to have the time/patience to carefully consider more than 2 or 3 sources. Colin M (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you very much, The real problem in this discussion is ignoring references that establish notability based on feelings! There are 4 Youm7 articles [67][68][69][70] by 3 different authors published in (2011, 2016, 2018) and ignoring these references that show significant coverage is not fair, Also an article in printed magazine [71] and reviewed technical articles (Editor review these articles before publication) [72][73] Also the article topic cover Ring and related projects (Supernova & PWCT) and there are many good references for PWCT in research papers and printed magazines like [74][75][76], all of these resources are enough for notability. Charmk (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last Comment I feel that some people who voted for deleting this article are just ignoring the references that establish notability (This doesn't help Wikipedia), The article topic cover Ring and related projects (Supernova & PWCT), and I listed three good references for PWCT notability like [77][78][79] and they are ignoring them!, Also they ignore articles published in journal (Youm7) by 4 different authors based on feelings that doesn't make sense! And they ignore articles in printed magazines like [80] because they don't know Arabic! Those people, I respect them but I can't help them to see the reality! Thanks to all of them, but I hope that Wikipedia contributors learn to invest some more time in evaluation, and learn to not ignore references that they don't uderstand and learn to vote based on facts not feelings! Charmk (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in question is about Ring, not PWCT. If you wrote an article about PWCT, it would be much easier to demonstrate notability (not that sources you listed are great, but at least Al Allam magazine looks like in depth coverage - assuming there is no connection between author and software developers). Less is more in any AfD, insane refbombing is the best way to dissuade even ultra-inclusionist editors like myself. Pavlor (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If you wrote an article about PWCT, it would be much easier to demonstrate notability" :: Thanks, we already have this Wikipedia article, Ring and PWCT are closely related so we have this Wikipedia article for both of them merged together, Ring is developed using PWCT and it's visual source is distributed with PWCT, Also Ring is designed for developing PWCT 2.0 [[81]]. The first page in the PWCT Website talk about developing the Ring programming language using PWCT, and the first page in the Ring website talk about this too, and both of them are designed by Fayed and contributors [82][83] and Youm7 articles [84][85][86] talk about them together. Charmk (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ring_(programming_language)&oldid=1138303911"