- While this debate ended in Keep, a subsequent debate ended in Delete.
- 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 01:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aurora (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Non-notable programming language software per WP:SOFTWARE; tone is slightly advert-ish. The software is still in beta; Google for Aurora "Ionic Wind Software" finds only trivial mentions of this program on download sites and discussion groups. [1] There is likely to be a conflict of interest here - all of the major changes to the article content have been by accounts or IPs whose only edits are to this article. Kimchi.sg 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.-gadfium 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why this article should be deleted on the say-so of one person? I am not entirely sure how to even start defending the article with me being a beginner contributing to this site. First of all i tried to make the article as neutral sounding as possible by looking at the other language articles and following their style. Not only that, but this lanuage is maturing and will be fully released in a few weeks. This article was to pre-emp the research of the computer science community and general public regarding Aurora. Of course to you this must sound like marketing talk and one big advert but other users and i hold Aurora in extremely high regard within the OOP systems languages and is a potential successor to C++, which of course DOES make it notable. You show me another language other than Java or SmallTalk that rivals Aurora? This has created alot of dissapointment in the current Aurora community especially as the release date is so imminent. Does this mean that Aurora will never have it's own page until you say?
- It should and surely will have its own page when it becomes a successor to C++, or shows signs of being in the running. Me, I am a potential President of the United States, but that in itself does not me notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & *comment - no, if you were a running candidate (as in a sense this used software is) you would have a page. Your comment would work more on the lines of a concept language someone may or may not make thats a potential computer language this is one. Or as you say a person who has the potential to be a candidate.--Xiahou 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepKalekold 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per nom.-Shannara. There have been too many trigger-happy admins going through deleting entries on Wikipedia. This really need to stop.
Frankly, for someone to start a delete thread who knows nothing about the langauge, its potential, and its roots, is absurd. The language is a solid compiler with tons of working examples, all it is lacking is a few documentation changes here and there. Do some research before you go and and try to hang something that you have no clue what it is or what it is about. If you bother to WIKI up XNA you will discover that there is a thread about it in here, and it is still technically in ALPHA, although they call it Beta 2 (or community technology preview 1), and its still under development. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge about many existing items. Aurora exists and is real and in use by tons of people.
- Speedy keep Zumwaltwood. 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)
- Account's second, third and fourth edits. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has the use of cursive font faces in signatures suddenly become wildly popular among the general Wikipedian community? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is your point about my edits, I had typo's and wanted to correct them. Has no bearing on this discussion. The font type of the signature also has nothing to do or has any bearing on this discussion. Zumwaltwood 21:51, 12 December 2006 (EST)
- 1) Since most people new to Wikipedia don't know about AfD, when a brand new user account's early postings are to an AfD discussion it raises the question of whether this might be an experienced Wikipedian posting under a new name, in order to give the appearance that a point of view is supported by more users than it really is. In AfD discussions, it is therefore customary to point out user names whose edits to an AfD discussion are among the first edits made under that account name.
- 2) The font type is a curious idiosyncrasy shared by the user or users of several accounts posting here. When several different account names share similar idiosyncrasies in their posting style, it raises the question of whether the accounts could all belong to the same person. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't care either way, but i think it should be pointed out that some of the advocates for keeping this article, and indeed those who wrote most of it, are 'partner developers' that gain financially from the sales of this product. To that end their comments could be considered marketing. If the article stays it should read less like an advert and in a similar style to other languages 82.29.182.9 05:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was to pre-emp the research of the computer science community and general public regarding Aurora. Of course to you this must sound like marketing talk and one big advert but other users and i hold Aurora in extremely high regard within the OOP systems languages and is a potential successor to C++, which of course DOES make it notable. You show me another language other than The C's, Java or SmallTalk that rivals Aurora? This has created alot of dissapointment in the current Aurora community especially as the release date is so imminent.
Also using google results as an indicator of being worthy for inclusion into this site is unreliable at best. Searching for mentions of Aurora returns a few thousand results, but is this an indication of its importance to the computer science community? I don't personally think so.
Lets take an example of other articles that appear on this site, lets take for example Doug Koupal. Who is Doug Koupal? I don't know either, but his contributions must of been notable because he has had a shiny wikipage for a year now. And guess what, he returns between 3-4 results from google!
Marking this article for deletion is a matter of opinion by someone who doesn't know anything about the subject of computer science or programming languages in general. Aurora IS notable and will gain global acclaim once it is released (exactly like XNA as another contributer pointed out). This article was created to educate people quickly about Aurora's design, feature set and history. Which is exactly the point of an encyclopedia.
I do however concede the point that the article may be construed as marketing and that i, as a partner developer on Aurora was the one that started this article. The reason for this was to get the information as accurate as possible, so what better author than somebody directly invloved? Maybe you are right (?) that the article could be worded a little more neutral, but you tell me how you can mention a language's feature-set and heritage without it sounding promotional?
Kalekold 10:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is good that someone who knows the language wrote the article (it'd be shocking if it was any other way!) but i think it would have helped your arguments if you were not on the payroll and the conflict of interests question did not arise. As to the article itself, certain phrases read like marketing spiel, for instance "advanced compiler" (what is so advanced about it?), "Linux and Mac OS X are planned" (marketing...), "Affiliates" (sales...) but perhaps the biggest problem is the lack of notability. A lack of hits on Google combined with a lack of links to independent sites in the article can only lead to the notion of it being non-notable. Sure, the developers and the (currently 210) forum members will have heard of it and will come here chanting "it must be notable - *I'VE* heard of it!" but who else? Has it been reviewed in magazines? Has any notable software been written in it? I don't think your argument about Doug Koupal is relevant. If you think he is non-notable then you should take that to his page, it is has nothing to do with the notability of this article. After all that, i think the article could stay if tidied up appropriately although the question of notability (at this point in time) remains 82.29.182.9 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The standard is not whether the people here have heard of it before, but whether the sources demonstarate that it is notable.DGG 06:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? The article cites none and Google shows nothing either. It appears not only have "people here" not heard of it before, nobody outside of Ionic Wind Software has heard of it either. Kimchi.sg 07:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Show me the sources and I'll change my recommendation to "keep." I've done this before and I'll do it again. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FYI even though it has no bearing on this discussion but to the validity of my posts, I am new to wikipedia, but I am a seasoned poster on many other forums. There is no validity in "calling me out" and accusing me of "puppeteering". Also, I think the cursive font is nice so once again, trying to accuse me of being one of the other posters by stating :"The font type is a curious idiosyncrasy shared by the user or users of several accounts posting here.": is an obvious gesture that you are placing me in the same category of those individuals, which in and of itself is a predjadicial remark. (you are basically being prejadice to my posts and towards me directly which is not allowed in wikipedia rules), I would appreciate it if you back off of me and stop with your prejadicisms towards me at this time. I do not appreciate them or your continued attacks on me, prejadice has no place here so please take it elsewhere and stick to the discussion as to wether or not this should remain in Wikipedia.
Zumwaltwood 10:42AM, 14 December 2006 (EST)
Google Research Information on Aurora Programming
Facts: Google Rank 3
Facts: Google information: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=site%3aionicwind.com
Facts: Google Search for Aurora Programing, Rank 7'th slot out of Results of about 1,050,000 for aurora programming. (0.28 seconds)
When stating that search engines know nothing about something please state facts as to where you are getting your accusations instead of just throwing words out with no solid research.
Further Information: (Last Update: 12/13/2006 According to TrafficBlazer on GoDaddy)
Saturation Facts based on GoDaddy Results:
Yahoo! Listed 33
Yahoo! Directory Listed
MSN Search Listed 190
AltaVista Listed 38
AlltheWeb Listed 38
Google Listed 2,920
ZenSearch Listed 2,920
Starting Point Listed 2,920
Alexa Listed 10
Just a little research about the product will show alot of information. Please do more research before posting accusations.
Zumwaltwood 18:57, 14 December 2006 (EST)
- I have only used the Google test to look for reliable sources on this language and software. The numbers themselves mean nothing. If I could find two or more in-depth, independent reviews of the Aurora software in some magazine or newspaper, I would change my call to "keep" in a flash. Sadly, there appear to be none. I repeat: The numbers and ranks thrown up by search engines add nothing to the article we do not already know. Indeed it is possible that they are artifically skewed. Kimchi.sg 12:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Zumwaltwood, the burden is on you to cite sources that show that the language is important. The people who write the articles and wish them to be kept have the responsibility of doing the research. If the language is important, this shouldn't be hard to do. Just show us where it's been written up in Dr. Dobb's Journal or mentioned in Wired or Infoworld or Computerworld or PC World or online in byte.com or something of that sort. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is completely unreferenced, and reads like a marketing brochure. Since the language has not yet been released it seems unlikely that any significant applications have been written in it. All claims to notability provided on this page appear to relate to the language's potential. But as others have noted, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allan McInnes (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Aurora is a NEW language, and because it is new, it shouldn't be evaluated for "notability" on the same criteria as long-established languages such as C++. I believe discussion about deletion of this article is premature. It won't do any harm to let it remain for a little while longer, and see whether the imminent production release really happens as claimed, and whether the language is reviewed in other publications as a result of its production release. --Rod Turnham 14:06 18 December 2006 (EST)
- Wikipedia grants no special privileges for "new" phenomena and does not evaluate them in a different way from other phenomena. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news medium. It's the other way around: there's no harm in deleting the article now. It can always be re-created without prejudice when enough has been published in reliable sources to enable an article to be written that meets the verifiability policy. I'd add that I believe a request to "userfy" the article, that is to move it to someone's personal user page on Wikipedia, would be honored. That would mean that the information would be available, indexed by Google, and make it easy to re-create the article at some future date. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2006 (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.