Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julia_(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 delete. Consensus to delete as non-notable (yet) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources provided are all WP:PRIMARY. Googling failed to turn any better sources. This may become notable in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:NOTE and is a pretty obscure item by general standards. Just look on the books link and then also search for Perl language and will see the difference in coverage. History2007 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article fails WP:GNG and only uses primary sources. ⇒TAP 16:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Julia is a new programming language -- a baby, if you will -- but a very interesting baby, being developed by a group of very talented people, headed by a faculty member of MIT. It is still very young, and its design is not finished, so naturally there are (as yet) no secondary texts. The day when you find "Julia for Dummies" on amazon.com is still a way off. Julia is obscure by comparison to Perl because almost every programming language is obscure by comparison to Perl. Perl is (or, until recently, was) the most widely-used dynamic language in the world. It is also one of the oldest. A better comparison might be to, say, Google's new Dart programming language. Which does have a wikipedia entry.

So that's why Julia deserves to be in Wikipedia. Now... why Wikipedia should have an article on Julia. Wikipedia is, now, for much of the world, the first place to look for information on any given topic. Julia is a legitimate, if young, programming language, and wikipedia should provide at least a modicum of basic information about it.

Finally, let me note for the record that I'm not in any way part of the Julia community or the Julia development team. I am a professional programmer who, over the decades, has seen the rise and decline of many programming languages. I feel that new programming languages -- especially languages with as strong a pedigree as Julia -- deserve to be treated with some respect. Some programming languages that are now just starting to become popular (e.g. Ruby) were once as obscure as Julia is now. So who knows? Perhaps one day, Julia will be as significant a programming language in its chosen niche -- fast processing of statistical data -- as Perl, Python, Ruby, D, Lua, Scala, and Dart are in theirs. StephenFerg (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument appears to be a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Just sayin' pbp 14:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think they may have presented something at Lang.NEXT, although I'm not sure if that alone would be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. —Ruud 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here: http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2012/Julia. —Ruud 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No 3rd party sources. Also, fails to meet GNG and several other guidelines. —Hahc21 23:42, 23 June 2012 (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.