Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V (programming language) (2nd nomination)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V (programming language)

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

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG. Of the provided sources, only two even have the pretense of independence: Hackaday and Packt Hub. Hackaday is apparently a blog and is thus assumed to not be reliable (see also this RSN discussion), whereas the content of the Packt Hub piece does not inspire confidence. Searching online, I wasn't able to find anything in internet or Scholar searches, although it's not impossible that I missed something due to the subject's minimalist name. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I missed the previous nomination. I supposed I'll see if there's been more news since then. I do believe the language is more than a simple toy language though, it has at least received some form of coverage and a very popular github project with committed developers. Tiraboschi (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to abstain from voting as I am the person who approved this article out of AfD. Admittedly, upon re-review, approving this article was likely a mistake. User:Rosguill did a much better job than I on the deep dive of looking at the sources. Part of this I'd like to attribute to me shaking off rust of taking a few years off from AfC. Hopefully this can fall under WP:PNJCS or maybe User:Tiraboschi will be able to come up with at least one solid source. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Caution to those searching for reliable sources: There is a notable Vlang language[1] that has received academic interest as a verification language[2][3][4], however that language is not the V/Vlang described in this article. This article describes the language at vlang.io, which is a different language and has received very little attention, and fails on notability grounds. No one has even added it to List of programming languages by type. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are sub-standard, and my own searching (admittedly, only a cursory look) didn't show up anything better. I wouldn't be opposed to moving this back to draft space, but I honestly think all that would happen there is it would languish until the inevitable WP:G13, so I can't really recommend it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this page considered for deletion? The language is being used and recently became one of the officially recognised language by Github. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.73.178 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nominated because the nominator does not think it holds up to our notability guideline (read more here: WP:GNG). In short, we require substantial coverage in reliable sources for a subject to have an article on wikipedia. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently the sources presented do not hold up to WP:GNG. I found two more, but they are extremely lightweight ([5], [6]). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2020 (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.