Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go! (programming language): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:31, 12 November 2009

Go! (programming language)

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

Non notable language. The article seems to be entirely sourced off the author's own publications. Per WP:N, sources should be secondary sources independent of the subject. If the only source of notability is the controversy over the Google's language name, then it should be mentioned in Go (programming language), not in a separate article. Laurent (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is not "entirely sourced from the author's publications", but also from two third party reviews, one in Informatica, a notable journal. The article is about a programming language that has been developed over many years, not about the naming controversy BarryNorton (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the Informatica source is enough to establish notability. The language is only mentioned as part of a survery of existing programming languages. All researchers have their research quoted at some point in one or two papers, but in my opinion that's not enough to establish notability. Laurent (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well sourced article, the talk page seems to center around the discussion that this wouldn't have been added if not for the Google controversy. Conversely, I believe we wouldn't be having any deletion discussion at all if this article was added in its current form before the Google controversy.--Capnchicken (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and it wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the Google controversy. Laurent (talk)
  - My argument is that if it was created independently no one would have looked twice. We'll never know if it would have been created without the Google controversy, but that doesn't matter. The nobility is in the independent academic citations. --Capnchicken (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly neither is the controversy reason to keep nor delete the article BarryNorton (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Laurent, is there some policy I don't know about concerning the causality of an article's creation? (And could you please keep your comments at the end of the relevant replies rather than pushing my prior ones down and interrupting, out of turn?) BarryNorton (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I got several edit conflicts at some point so I may have accidentally put my reply above yours. That wasn't intentional. My point regarding the Go naming issue is still the same - if the language is only notable because of Go (Google) then it should be in Go (programming language) and not in a separate article. Having appeared in a list of existing programming languages in one paper is not sufficient to establish notability. Laurent (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not simply a "list", is it? Not even just a table entry, listing features. It's half page (three paragraphs) of detailed description in a journal 93.152.163.40 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are tons of academic programming languages. This one seems to have been last updated two years ago, and I can't find any other references to it other than the academic papers mentioned in the article. No one appears to use it. Part of the wiki page is ripped straight from the article's abstract. Definitely not notable. This page is the author's attempt to make it notable, to strengthen his argument against Google. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advertising your stuff and making it more notable; it should be reasonably notable in the first place. Marcan (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not Frank McCabe, nor involved in the language. Feel free to Google me BarryNorton (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you seem to be doing him a huge favor then. Everyone keeps repeating "Go! is the second result on Google! How did Google not bother to Google the name of their new programming language!?" when the second result is this article, which was created yesterday, and there are just about no other hits on Google about Go! older than a few days. Marcan (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, If you search for "go programming language" and remove all of the Google Go results, the first result is still about McCabe's Go... For me here there is no doubt that Google deliberately ignored the existence of this language... Rmlopes (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.141.54 (talk) [reply]
Keep Most programming languages released to the public are notable; the journal articles and the news coverage vis-a-vis the naming issue strengthen Go!'s claim to notability. WP:N is only a guideline, and I am willing to somewhat disregard it in this instance as it doesn't work particularly well in the field of programming languages. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) While I agree the naming issue is notable (and already appears in Go (programming language)), I don't think the language in itself is. We should document the event, not the subject of the event, in pretty much the same way we don't create article about a person just because they have been part of a notable event. Laurent (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what of the journal articles? --Cybercobra (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Researchers have to make an extensive survey of their own field before starting their research. Being quoted once or twice, like Go!, as part of this kind of survey is very common and, in my opinion, doesn't establish notability. Laurent (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created at least two random special-purpose programming languages. If I released them, would they be notable? Heck no. I think the defining characteristic of a notable programming language is that people use it. This doesn't mean it needs to be popular for writing applications, but at least it needs to have some form of an user base. For example, Brainfuck is notable because it's a great example of an esoteric programming language and a turing tarpit, and many people program with it for the challenge or to learn about Turing machines, even though it's not practical for real-world usage. Marcan (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note I said "most", not all. Go! is an academic language and has been written up in several journal articles. Your strawman languages have neither academic merit nor any userbase. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I agree with the keepers arguments above, I don't need to add a new one) --Gridinoc (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is interesting to see that this article was created exactly when Google introduced a language with almost the same name. It is also interesting to see that some people want to delete this article immediate, while Google got an article for their language without problems. BTW: When you wonder why I made so few edits in Wikipedia: I don't like the way how articles get removed. My user page in the german Wikipedia had a factual explanation of my reasons, but this user page was deleted as well... Thomas Mertes (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's your argument for keeping the article? It seems that you want to keep it just because yours got deleted... Laurent (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. AFAIK the votes in AfD discussions are not counted. I just wanted to point out that some articles (about things coming from big companys) are more equal then others. Aside from the deletion of 'my' article I have a more liberal position regarding the deletion of articles. A lot of work is lost when articles are deleted. There should be another way to handle such issues. Thomas Mertes (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? It's not very likely someone is actually going to search for this is it now. I bet the only person who has found it is the author. I vote that you should all find something better to do with your time than arguing about whether to keep an utterly unnoteworthy article. 79.64.177.233 (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This POV would fail the WP:HARMLESS test. The fact that the article is harmless does not state a reason for notability. brontide (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources for information about "Go!" are from one source, the author. Before "Issue 9" http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 their was no wiki page because their was no notability. Issue 9 was brought up by the author himself, not even by a third party. This controversy does not create suitable notability for inclusion of a self published work. Without some 3rd party notability of sufficient credibility this page should be deleted. The controversy should be kept, but the language itself requires a source besides the author himself. brontide (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is simply untrue; there are two independent reviews of the features of the language quoted in the article BarryNorton (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. Demonstrably false; and there's the InformationWeek article to boot. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The InformationWeek article covers the naming controversy, which I would consider one of a "short burst of news reports", and not enough to establish notability. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonovision (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inclusion in survey papers might be enough to sustain bare notability since those sources only trivially relate to the topic. Remember that existence is not notability. Short of a third party source on the language itself, not attached to the controversy, I don't see how notability can be sustained. brontide (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per |Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Aside from being published in the author's own publications, it has only been mentioned briefly in a handful of publications in the same academic field. There are thousands of thousands of experimental new programming languages, algorithms, and mathematical theories published every year that never become notable, and Wikipedia doesn't need an article for each one of them. Before Tuesday's naming controversy started, there were no mentions of this language outside of an academic journal. --Jonovision (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your link, |Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, is not a criterion for notability; it is a guide on writing style. Halberdo (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Halberdo just beat me to it, style guide not a basis for inclusion (otherwise should we remove general relativity?!) 93.152.163.40 (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only reason of notability is the name collision with the Google language. Therefore Go! should be a just section in that article. If something (algorithm, programming language, data structure, whatever) is the topic of just a few very low ranked publications it does NOT deserve a wiki article. Otherwise thousands of scientists in search of citations will fill the wikipedia with their own minimal variants published somewhere. If something is subject of a highly cited work (e.g hundred or thousands of citations), then it is notable, not just because it have been published in some minor conference. Probably we should be careful to do not create a precedent. ALoopingIcon (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, clearly the Internet is bulging and nearly full. If we allow room for the peer-reviewed science then where, exactly, are we supposed to detail the lives of reality television stars? BarryNorton (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The language is notable because of the collision with Google’s widely marketed new language. It serves the interest of the Wikipedia because people may be curious what the “other Go” language is about. The language is also notable because it articles about it have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, namely: Applied Intelligence, Informatica, and Computational Intelligence. Samboy (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The language is interesting enough on its own right, not just because of its association with Google's language. Halberdo (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 ** Yes, clearly the Internet is bulging and nearly full. If we allow room for the peer-reviewed science then where, exactly, are we supposed to detail the lives of reality television stars? [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 16:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Keep'''.  The language is notable because of the collision with Google’s widely marketed new language.  It serves the interest of the Wikipedia because people may be curious what the “other Go” language is about.  The language is also notable because it articles about it have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, namely: ''Applied Intelligence'', ''Informatica'', and ''Computational Intelligence''.  [[User:Samboy|Samboy]] ([[User talk:Samboy|talk]]) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''': The language is interesting enough on its own right, not just because of its association with Google's language. [[User:Halberdo|Halberdo]] ([[User talk:Halberdo|talk]]) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)