Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go! (programming language) (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go!_(programming_language)_(2nd_nomination)

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. L Faraone 02:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go! (programming language)

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

The language got some attention when Go was released, but sharing a name with another programming language is not enough to establish notability (and the naming issue is already documented in Go_(programming_language)#Naming_dispute).

Three of the references are primary sources (the papers by the language's author) and the other three sources are either dead links or don't mention the language at all. It seems even the home page of the language is now a dead link.

So suggesting deletion per WP:N. Laurent (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't meet WP:GNG, and it's already mentioned in Go (programming language). Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 20:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of academic references, so it meets WP:GNG. The original paper is cited many times academically. Some of them are self citations, but there are independent descriptions in the academic literature: This book chapter contains a description of features of the language, this Ph.D. thesis dedicates a small chapter to it, this also mentions features of the language and its derivation, etc. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article is mentioned in the article for Go (programming language). In addition, I'm not completely sure it meets WP:N or has enough in-line citations. APerson241 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is mentioned in the article, but just because of the similary names... Christian75 (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Citation count of the original paper is somewhat on the border like. But the naming dispute has of course to a certain extend increased the notability of this language (both in terms of mentions on news sources as well as people now interesting in finding about what this similarly named language to Go is all about.) —Ruud 09:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "Go!" language seems to be notable enough -- I count more than 80 citations of McCabe's papers on Go!, and I've probably missed several others. The "Go" language is completely unrelated (apart from the similar name). -- 202.124.75.18 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references from different sources,and the language is notable enough,which doesn't fail WP:GNG.L smll 10:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has some notability in scope of functional programming languages. The worse thing is that if article is deleted, it would be extremely hard to find info on that language because search engines will show results for google's "go" instead. I suppose it is important that wikipedia have some info on the topic, if it is really mentioned in at least one published book, or article. Notability is not equal to popularity. Rodion Gork (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (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.