Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→Ring (programming language): re top 50 claim |
||
Line 12:
*'''Delete''' For the sake of [[Straw_man#Steelmanning|steelmanning]], I'll point out that [https://www.youm7.com/story/2016/1/11/%D9%81%D9%89-25-%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84-%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%A9-%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%86/2532713#.Vxg2-tQrLIU this article] in [[Youm7]] could be argued to constitute [[WP:SIGCOV]]. But I'm still inclined to delete for a few reasons: a) [[WP:GNG]] says that "multiple sources are generally expected", and I can't find any other reliable secondary sources covering this topic b) I don't think this Youm7 article/interview is particularly reliable for establishing the notability of the programming language itself. It's as much about the interviewee (Fayed) as the language. And if this were a notable programming language, I would expect coverage in RS that cover technology/computer science. c) The interview (in Jan 2016) talks about the language as something newly announced which is about to be published. So [[WP:SUSTAINED]] and [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]] come into play. [[User:Colin M|Colin M]] ([[User talk:Colin M|talk]]) 15:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' [https://www.youm7.com/story/2016/1/11/%D9%81%D9%89-25-%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84-%D9%84%D8%BA%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%A9-%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D9%85%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B5%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%85%D9%86/2532713#.Vxg2-tQrLIU 1] [https://www.youm7.com/story/2016/11/23/%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A1-%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF-%D9%85%D9%86-%D8%AA%D9%82%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%85%D8%AC%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%83%D9%88%D8%AF/2979508 2] [https://store.steampowered.com/app/939200/Gold_Magic_800/ 3] [https://www.codeproject.com/Tips/1222859/Different-styles-for-writing-Hello-World-program-i 4] [https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1096942/Squares-Puzzle-using-RingAllegro 5] [https://www.ciklum.com/blog/new-programming-languages-a-hype-or-reality/ 6] [https://medium.com/@cryptovision/blockchain-app-development-outlook-will-we-all-write-apps-in-the-future-fe5704247b4e 7] printed journals, reviewed articles and usage by some companies (enough to establish notability and a lot of references could be added). Also listed in top 100 programming languages by [https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ TIOBE Index] and it was in [https://glinksolutions.vn/2018/06/28/evolution-ring-programming-language/ top 50 in 2018]. Yes popularity is not notability but both of them is good indicator. [[User:Charmk|Charmk]] ([[User talk:Charmk|talk]]) 16:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
** That ranking uses a [https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/programming-languages-definition/ dubious methodology] based on [[WP:GOOGLEHITS]]. "Ring" is a common word that's more likely to produce false positive matches (even when combined with the word "programming") than say, Common Lisp, Erlang, PowerShell, etc. For example, most of the Bing results for "ring programming" after the first couple pages are false positives (e.g. [http://www.plcmanual.com/examples-vi] [http://www.fixya.com/support/t3011890-turn_off_ringer_nortel_t7316e] [https://forum.nfcring.com/topic/615/programming-nfc-ring-with-rfid-data] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_ring]) [[User:Colin M|Colin M]] ([[User talk:Colin M|talk]]) 18:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
| |||