Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mojo (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
wk, otherwise merge |
→Mojo (programming language): Reply |
||
Line 21:
:<p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br /><small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <sup>[[User:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#0039a6">Complex</span>''']]</sup>/<sub>[[User talk:ComplexRational|'''<span style="color:#000000">Rational</span>''']]</sub> 18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:XfD relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Mojo (programming language)]]</noinclude></p>
* '''Weak keep'''. Even treating this as a corporate product (which I agree is the best approach at this stage), this seems to meet [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] based on the [https://www.infoworld.com/article/3697739/a-first-look-at-the-mojo-language.html InfoWorld] and [https://analyticsindiamag.com/this-new-programming-language-is-likely-to-replace-python/ Analytics India] articles. Both appear to provide hundreds of words of in-depth independent analysis that provides source material for a decent article, or as CORPDEPTH puts it they {{tq|make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub}}. [https://thenewstack.io/python-gets-its-mojo-working-for-ai/ This in-depth review from The New Stack], a source I'm not familiar with but which is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, also seems fine. At least on the surface all three of these appear to meet [[WP:SIRS]]. And there's certainly nothing surprising about such an initiative attracting this level of attention in the current environment. That said, if there ''are'' genuine and substantial problems with the sources, I'd suggest merging to [[Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo]]. -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] ([[User talk:Visviva|talk]]) 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
*:I'm a skeptical of the independence of ''Analytics India'' source due to their "branded content" program: [https://analyticsindiamag.com/advertise-with-us/] ''{{tq|"Syndicated brand material or custom featured stories are great ways to share your viewpoint."}}''
*:I'm very skeptical of ''The New Stack'', they seem to be the "journalism" arm of a tech investment firm: [https://thenewstack.io/about-and-contact-info/][https://www.insightpartners.com/]. And the author is referred to as a ''{{tq|developer marketing writer}}''[https://thenewstack.io/author/jessica-wachtel/]
*:Currently the only source I trust is InfoWorld, and to be fair, it's a good article. —[[User:Siroxo|siro]][[User talk:Siroxo|''χ'']][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|o]] 05:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
| |||