Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language)

Ring (programming language)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:N from the talk page, and also WP:TOOSOON. Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software) and wider WP:N policy, passing mentions outside primary sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from third-party sources and also no indication of meeting NSOFT. --94rain ^Talk 11:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the sake of steelmanning, I'll point out that 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. Colin M (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 2 3 4 5 6 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 TIOBE Index and it was in top 50 in 2018. Yes popularity is not notability but both of them is good indicator. Charmk (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That ranking uses a 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. [1] [2] [3] [4]) Colin M (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I listed enough resources that establish notability, for popularity (which is another topic) and the rank in TIOBE Index, Yes some search results doesn't belong to the language but there are many resources related to the language across many websites and people at TIOBE used to adjust the result. A little search about the language lead to Hundreds of samples in RosettaCode A book in Wikibooks, thousands of YouTube videos and blogs by many authors, for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, TIOBE uses these results from many search engines to determine top languages. Ring article in Wikipedia is written in many languages by different authors in different countries 1 2 3 4 which is another indicator too. Also I discovered complete translation to the language website and documentation in Japanese 1 2. Charmk (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has anything notable actually been made using it? Do any notable computer scientists, or businesses, actually use it? There's no response from the Hacker News community. Reddit is completely unfavourable! (Those are the only ones I could find with any comments.) Quora is also completely unfavourable! (Those are the only ones I could find with more answers than just the language creator.) -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]