mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obix programming language Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Obix_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 no consensus. at this point, it seems there is no consensus. If notability is not clearer in 3 or 4 months, a renomination would be appropriate DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obix programming language

[edit]
Obix 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)

Appears to be a relatively new programming language. Can't tell the age. Can't tell notability of this, either. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep per sources provided below - two reliable magazines are enough for WP:GNG.Transwiki to Wikibooks:Programming languages bookshelf. The source provided doesn't establish notability all by itself, but the content is a good summary that could be kept outside in Wikipedia. Diego (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found in-depth coverage in one independent reliable source: John Knight (February 2012), "New Projects: Fresh from the Labs", Linux Journal, 2012 (214): 62–65 {{citation}}: |chapter= ignored (help). Not enough to pass WP:GNG, but close. As to the age, the online Obix programming language documentation has "Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011", so the language has apparently been under development for several years, but as recently as June 3, 2011, its designer wrote: "Obix is still in beta version".  --Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list of programming languages displayed in the following Wikipedia pages (and others too) are currently missing the Obix programming language: List of programming languages, List of programming languages by category, List of open-source programming languages. Instead of merely adding external links I created the 'Obix programming language' article, so that Wikipedia links (instead of external links) can be inserted in these lists and thus make them more complete. It is true that Obix isn't yet a famous programming language but this is also true (IMHO) for a number of other programming languages which are mentioned in the lists and which have their own Wikipedia page. I also thought that the reference to the article in Linux Journal makes Obix notable (at least to a certain degree) because Linux Journal itself is notable (otherwise it wouldn't have a Wikipedia page). To increase notability I added the following references to the article: Open-source project announcement on Coding forums, Maxtina Fernando (January 2012), "Obix Programing Language" (PDF), FOSS User Magazine, 2012: 25. I am an absolute Wikipedia newbie, so please correct me if my reasonings are wrong. Obligato17 (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can, obviously, not have an article for every possible conceivable topic. As a criterion whether a topic is important enough to have its own article, we use the criterion of notability, for which the litmus test is whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here, multiple sources are generally expected; lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may perhaps be suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic, but does not warrant a separate article. It is not clear that the two sources you added fit our notion of reliability. In fact, it is obvious that the announcement on Coding forums does not qualify; for FOSS User Magazine it depends largely on whether the editorial board consists of qualified experts who exercise quality control before submissions are accepted, such as by peer review. Although I did not understand the Tamil text on submissions, I doubt this is the case.  --Lambiam 13:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+Transwiki We can transwiki the page becuase the articles nobility isnt very high bu high. And it could work better in a new wiki. Or we just leave it where it is and let some more people edit it.Algamicagrat (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added '99 bottles of beer' source code example as a reference in the article, because according to Wikipedia:99 Bottles of Beer test: "This test considers the notability of a language in terms of its appearance in a random collection of example program ...". I think it's important to note that List of programming languages contains many languages that are certainly not notable if WP:NSOFT is strictly applied. But all of them have their own Wikipedia page. Some of them don't have any references at all. I don't want to give concrete examples, but they can be found very easily. Some languages are not (yet) 'famous', but they might cover specific needs and therefore (IMHO) it's good to have them included in Wikipedia. Some visitors appreciate the fact that the list is complete. Would it be fair, then, to delete this article? I think it's also worth noting that 'Obix' is not 'commercial software'. It is an open-source programming language, licensed under the AGPL, free of charge for everyone, and it tries to help solving one the most notable problems persisting since decades in the software development industry, namely to create more reliable software. Obligato17 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 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, Wifione Message 06:54, 16 March 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.