Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 12:
==Previous deletion==
Our guiding principle in deciding whether to accept drafts is whether it is [[WP:LIKELY]] to be deleted once accepted. This article has been [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language)|previously deleted]] a little over a year ago and the discussion was not pretty. It is unlikly to get the benefit of doubt in a second hearing at AfD. Of the sources I've identified as potential evidence for notability, only InfoWorld was published after the delete discussion. That doesn't strike me as compelling enough to reopen this. {{u|Charmk}}, what has changed since the deletion discussion that would convince AfD participants that this subject is now notable? ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 18:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|Kvng}} Beside the InfoWorld article, a Book published by Apress which is a notable publisher, The book is written by one of the contributors to the Ring project who contributed to the project while writing the book. [https://web.archive.org/web/20180527165234/https://ring-lang.sourceforge.net/team.html Ring Team in 2018] - [https://ring-lang.sourceforge.io/team.html Ring Team in 2020]. Also I discovered the DotNetPro coverage after the deletion discussion. Since this is an open-source project we can relax our criteria and accept references like GeekBrains [https://geekbrains.ru/posts/the_ring this one]. Also an entry by [https://www.softpedia.com/get/Programming/Coding-languages-Compilers/Fayed-Ring.shtml Softpedia] [[User:Charmk|Charmk]] ([[User talk:Charmk|talk]]) 18:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
| |||