Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go (programming language)

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 speedy keep. Nomination borders on POINT for pseudo-consistency. Sources have been added, and this argument has not advanced, with no further editors supporting deletion. Let's get back to editing... Ian¹³ /t 23:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go (programming language)

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

Article contains no substantial references outside golang.org, owned by Google, and is either motivated either by recent news on its release (which is not notable) or self-promotion. The article does not belong on Wikipedia until Go has proven its notability.BarryNorton (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The language has been reviewed in many tech websites. See for instance [1], [2] or [3]. We just need to improve the article and integrate the sources. Laurent (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a good idea. What a productive use of your time that would be BarryNorton (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well at least I don't nominate articles out of spite. Laurent (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't. In fact if you check the edit history you'll see I was contributing positively to this article. In the mean time, though, I've been persuaded (by consistency) that Google's Go language is not notable, after one day, under the criteria applied for an encyclopedia. This is not a tech news site, this article belongs on blogs. BarryNorton (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, you're DEFINITELY not power tripping. Nope. Not at all. hif (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power-tripping? More like wondering why anyone bothers putting time into a new article BarryNorton (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, just leave them be. It's not like these fifteen kilobytes of database space are personally harming you. If you think it's such a waste of time, why spend energy trying to defeat it? Unless, of course, you had a chip on your shoulder... hif (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I hadn't noticed that Laurent nominated the Go! article for deletion. That is also hella lame; definitely changes my perception of the comments preceding this one in the thread. hif (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination is being made for WP:POINT reasons; please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go!_(programming_language). I suggest this nomination be quickly closed for WP:SNOW reasons (we all know the language is notable and has a lot of news coverage right now; it’s made by notable UNIX developers, etc.). Samboy (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"has a lot of news coverage right now" - WP:NOTNEWS BarryNorton (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fleeting popularity != notability. I would change my vote only after more references have been added that don't go full circle back to golang.org. brontide (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, all current references appear to be from golang.org itself, original work of the golang.org team ( techtalk ), or references to the recent release of the software to the general public ( PR ). While newsworthy, it's not WP:N until there is a larger body of 3rd party references. The existing article should, in the meantime, probably be divided up between the authors pages or a Google sub-page. brontide (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can say that Go's popularity is fleeting unless you have some sort of crystal ball that you're failing to cite. Only time will tell if Go ends up being an important language regardless of its longevity. Even if its popularity is fleeting it could quite possibly give rise to some other language that does gain a wide acceptance thus making Go notable in a historic sense. Kinema τ 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if go doesn't become a popular language, this article is still important for the historical record. Jesse Bye (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because it's Google? There are thousands of computer languages BarryNorton (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a record of programming languages. Wikipedia is an incredibly useful resource on this topic, and probably a major keeper of our communal folklore. There are a ton of less notable programming languages that have articles, and they're all great imho. Who doesn't love Whitespace or INTERCAL? hif (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already the amount of publicity makes it notable. It brings about some novelties that make it a unique and valuable thing that seems exciting to a tremendous lot of poeple as you can guess from the news coverage. So: We should keep it and let it grow to a better article that reflects that notability to full extent.--Wondigoma (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Your idea of notability obviously differs from much of the other existing articles on Wikipedia, how about flagging some esoteric languages like LOLCODE for deletion? It seems that this is just some trolling to gain some notoriety. --Lewisham (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOLCODE has many 3rd party references. It may have been a joke and esoteric, but it's sourced properly. brontide (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has third-party news sources, probably actually more coverage than many of our language articles. Is this a retaliatory nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go! (programming language)? If so, this isn't really the way to go about it (though I agree that article also shouldn't be deleted). --Delirium (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be debated on the merits of the article, not on the user who nominated it. brontide (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; WP:POINT is policy for a reason, so we don't have to engage in rules-lawyering charades when it's clear what's going on. --Delirium (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when so many keep votes are predicated on the assumption that one could gather non-news footnotes, it's not clear why this page continues to grow while the article's footnotes are unchanged BarryNorton (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This deletion request has been a source of ridicule from John Siracusa, who is notable enough to be cited in Dock, Finder_(software) and Mac OS X. This WP:POINT request reflects badly on Wikipedia. --Lewisham (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination should be closed per WP:SNOW since it was opened for the wrong reasons. There's nothing to discuss whatsoever as we all know the language has been (and will be) reviewed in details in major websites. Laurent (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of independent coverage to establish notability. Not eligible for speedy/snow, imo, because there's a definite question of recentism that needs to be discussed fully.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep plenty of coverage, even in non-web media. 72.8.35.210 (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Since this language is new, third party coverage is hard to find at this stage, except for comments. The language is very interesting, seen from a computer programmer's view, having been in the trade for some 33 years. It has a fresh new view on Object Orientation, and uses a very interesting concurrency solution, it should also be usable for multicore. I have been doing minor editing on the article, but it certainly needs to be built up more over the next months. --Øyvind Teig (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING This is no reason to keep it, and the difficulty of finding reliable sources, that are not simply reporting news, is why it is premature BarryNorton (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A big company announces a programming language and it gets an article almost immediate. Almost nobody questions the notability, third-party coverage or other things that are used to delete articles about other languages. Thomas Mertes (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability should be obvious: the language's designers are very well known in their field, and more secondary sources are highly likely to become available in the near future, if not already. Letdorf (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

WP:FUTURE BarryNorton (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to content, not availability of sources. Letdorf (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy Keep as POINTy nomination.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 23:29, 12 November 2009 (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.