Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G_(programming_language)

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 redirect to G-code and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Until July 9, this was a redirect to G-code. This new article lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to move this article to my user page, but I am not the owner of the "G" programming language, only the initiator of the article, so why would I put it there? I put it here simply for completeness, to add a language that has been omitted and looks interesting. I'd like to cite "Wikipedia does not have firm rules", one of the Pillars of Wikipedia. Drquim (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia does have guidelines that editors follow to develop WP:Consensus in making decisions. You'll find help on how an AfD works at WP:AFDFORMAT. In deciding whether to keep an article, the question is always, are there reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability? On Wikipedia, all of these terms have slightly more technical meanings than you might expect, so it's worth reading the material at WP:GNG. Here, it's not enough that something seems notable, i.e., that people not connected to the subject should take note (because it seems notable), they have to actually do it and they have to do it in reliable independent secondary sources. WP:RS As a practical matter, for a typical software product, that usually means citing a couple magazine articles or mentions in a couple books. Currently, the article doesn't have that and when I Googled, I couldn't find any. Hope this helps (and explains the suggestion you got about moving the article to a page in your user space and continuing working on it as you look for sources.) Msnicki (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or restore the redirect. Despite the comments on User talk:Drquim, I still hope that Drquim is willing to engage in a civil discussion. Just in case: developing an article in user space is a technique I have used until enough reliable sources can be found to justify inclusion. For example, this language could certainly be notable in the future, for example, if a trade press or academic writes an article on it. At that point it would be welcome; I am generally inclusionist, but also prefer quality articles over quantity. W Nowicki (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you are saying is, if the company pays PR Web $300 to have their release appear in other magazines with some journalist's name stuck on them, it's suddenly reputable. Drquim (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Articles that are clearly just paid placements or reprints of a company's press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:CORPDEPTH. To get useful coverage, most small companies will follow simpler guerrilla marketing strategies, e.g., sending free copies to journalists and then following up to see if they can get them interested in writing something. Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability, no independent references. (Restoring redirect would also be acceptable.) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- No independent references and I think a case can be made that this is WP:Promotion, as the article creator is associated with the business that created the language. I also think the lack of independent and reliable sources make it pretty clear that WP:N is not satisfied. Finally, changing the redirect without any sort of discussion was inappropriate, as WP:N of G-code is well established. For now, the redirect should be restored and the article deleted. Let some enthusiastic user of the G programming language write up a new article once it receives broader and more verifiable coverage. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already stated that I have nothing to do with the company. I just heard about the language and decided to create an article. How that would associate me with the company is beyond me. What proof did you have to offer that I'm somehow a member of the company? Drquim (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one really cares whether you're associated with the company or not (even though, as a new editor, you'll naturally face more skepticism and concern about possible WP:COI, as explained at WP:SPA.) But we do assume you care about your article. So we're trying to explain why the lack of sources is a problem right now and how you might move the article to user space, e.g., to User:Drquim/G (programming language), and then continue working to find sources. Msnicki (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell has time for this. I started an article. Like always, this "community" moves to delete it. I don't have time to sit around trolling, doing extensive source research etc. I got two kids I don't have time to play stupid games with you people. Do the research yourself. Drquim (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete —Ruud 20:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see no reason to delete information. Drquim (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2011 (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.