Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opa (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Opa_(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. v/r - T P 19:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opa (programming language)

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

Not notable. No significant coverage in any reliable independent sources. (None cited in the article, and none found on searching.) This appears to be a new project to create a programming language, coordinated via a wiki. The Wikipedia article appears to have been written by one of the developers, probably as an attempt to get a bigger public profile for the language. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep). I'm one of the editors of the article and one of the authors of the Opa itself, so I think I can say something about the project. It's not a new project in the sense that it was in the works for many years. It is a new project in the sense that it was released as open-source just this June (2011). So that's why there are no (yet) many reliable independent sources talking about it. But the project is an OWASP project and MLstate, the creators of Opa, are part of the W3C consortium and now that the project is publicly available it's only a matter of time for it to gain more coverage. The topic was also subject to peer reviewed publications in international conferences/journals. I added one such publications in the external sources of the article. Koper (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand waht you are saying, but "there are no (yet) many reliable independent sources talking about it" is a reason for deletion. Wikipedia requires a subject to have reliable independent sources in order to establish that it is notable enough to warrant an article. If you are right in thinking that "it's only a matter of time for it to gain more coverage" then we can have an article when that proves to be the case, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we do not have articles on the basis that people involved in the subject believe that their project will establish itself as notable someday. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. No prejudice to recreation if this catches on and garners the necessary coverage in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (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) 00:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is an OWASP project, but even the OWASP article itself lacks independent references. Better to bring the article back when (and if) independent sources are available. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:25, 29 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.