Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog (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 Sepandar Kamvar. Consensus is to Merge/Redirect. I will go ahead and redirect for now, leaving the history intact; that way, anyone who wants to bring over info can do so easily. Also, should the subject become notable in the future (passing the WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns of the commentors here), it can be unredirected, but only if those concerns can be solidly met. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dog (programming language)

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

This is an article about a future product. From WP:CRYSTALBALL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Msnicki (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Sepandar Kamvar. Interestingly, there are news articles on the language, for instance, new-programming-language-makes-coding-social-apps-easier, but the ones I found seem more like press releases. Nonetheless, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; there are no sources I could find that describe the language in any detail. The main website http://www.dog-lang.org has an email sign up for future announcements and nothing else. When the language is released and multiple reliable sources can be found, I have no problems with this article being recreated. In the meantime, merge and redirect to the language creator's page is a reasonable course of action. It may be useful to note that there is already a DOG programming language, described at http://esolangs.org/wiki/DOG, which is also an attempt at a natural language approach to programming. Mark viking (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet real, research project, no external users, etc. Rwessel (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sepandar Kamvar. Looks promising, but WP:TOOSOON as it's not even been released yet. Altered Walter (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merger and redirect to Sepandar Kamvar. There's potential to expand the current description with academic papers like this and commentary from the authors (see this and this) that describe the language, though those are primary sources. It seems that the Jabberwocky stack would be a better topic for the article, and it can be re-created by someone interested in writing about it. Diego (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good argument for merge and redirect. I've changed my recommendation. Mark viking (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with merging, too. It's one of the suggested options in what I quoted from WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability doesn't seem to be an issue and per the Wired UK ref, " is already in use at the Skissernas Museum in Lund, Sweden" so I don't see why TOOSOON or CRYSTAL should apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was AfD'ed within 12 hours of article creation. Big WP:BITEY trout to the nominator 8-( There was no excuse for this. Crap gets speedied, not AfDed. For anything that a nominator thinks might be AfD fodder, the least they could do, merely out of deference to a new (under a month) editor, would be to wait a few days and see how an article under active development turned out. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be less of a future product if the article were older? The problem I have with the article is that it's a WP:CRYSTALBALL article about a software product that the article claims will exist in the future but does not exist today. I take the claim that it doesn't exist as true, in which case it doesn't matter how long the authors of this article have been working on it. I also don't see how it's helpful to make this personal here and on my talk page, especially coming from the minority of one. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you know better than Wired that it isn't (as they claim) already in use?

The trout isn't about the AfD, it's about biting new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that AFD was now considered biting if it was a new editor. Would you kindly link me to that guideline and I'll happily apologize to the creator. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it to the software project..but this new editor leeway crap is exactly that crap. If we set a lower standard simply because they are new we set a lower standard for the entire wikipedia. If it isn't up to snuff with the standards or guidelines why should we allow them to put more work into a product that shouldn't be here anyways, it's like the governemnt watching you build something and when you're done tell you "well we knew it wasn't to code but you were new here so didn't want to discourage you." It's like doing math when multiplying things by zero you always get zero...so whether the author is new or old if it shouldn't be here it should be deleted...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:29, 9 December 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.