Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citrine (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 keep. A disagreement existed as to exactly whether this has sufficient coverage to pass the notability standards, and most editors seem to have come to the conclusion that it does just about do so based on the sources now provided. ~ mazca ^talk 17:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citrine (programming language)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable programming language, just 1 reliable reference (InfoWorld), that doesn't provide a significant coverage to satisfy GNG. I tried to find references for notability, I can't find them.

References in the article:

[1] entry submitted by Gabor de Mooij (The language author)

[2] not notable

[3] users content

[4] One reference is not enough for GNG

Also the project in GitHub [5] looks not active (67 stars!). Charmk (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ↻ restored, 2020-08 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd not call the project inactive: they had a release in March, and they plan their next release next March [6]. The Jax magazine coverage appears to pass the independent and substantial tests of a source for notability: for GNG the question is, does it count as reliable? — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the notability case is borderline according to the GNG and the article has maintenance tags indicating nontrivial content issues, but the article is decently written and interesting. In the absence of verifiability or neutrality issues, I don't think we should be deleting this kind of article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The available references are not enough to write a good article using secondary resources. if the article topic is interesting and may become notable in the future, then writing a draft (using secondary resources, without COI) is the right thing to do for Wikipedia. I started this draft in August because the article topic is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and the current article is written by the language author himself (COI). if you are interested in the article topic, you could help in improving this draft for the future until the article topic becomes ready for Wikipedia. Draft:Citrine_(programming_language) Charmk (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unpaid CoI editing is only a delete rationale if the content fails the WP:TNT test. This is not remotely the case for this article: it has mild POV issues in a small number of sentences. Similarly, the GNG criterion sets a bar far below that required to ensure that we can write a good article; it ensures only that we can put together a nontrivial one. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could those who want to keep this article perhaps just list the three best sources on which their argument for notability is based? After all, three good independent references to reliable sources is all we need. Charmk (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are two independent sources in the article. Additionally, there's a paper from a conference on education programming that has a passing mention of Citrine: "Probably the most interesting approach to the problem of programming language localization is the one introduced in Citrine, version 0.7, whose vocabulary is automatically translated between natural languages [5]." (Jakub Swacha, 2002. Polish Python: A Short Report from a Short Experiment. In First International Computer Programming Education Conference (ICPEC 2020), ed. Ricardo Queirós, Filipe Portela, Mário Pinto and Alberto Simões. OASICS Vol. 81) [7]. Per guidelines, the case for notability is in the grey zone; I !vote keep due because I think we can get an acceptable article out of what we have, one that is verifiable, neutral, maintainable, and of encyclopedic interest. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree with you, Also we relax our inclusion criteria for free & open source per WP:NSOFT#Reliability and significance of sources. Charmk (talk) 22:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chalst, after InfoWorld, what is the second independent source? ~Kvng (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, According to my understanding, He means this reference [8] jaxenter doesn't have a Wikipedia article (not notable) but he says it's a reliable source, the question is "Could we accept this type of sources because Citrine is an open-source project?" Charmk (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charmk, that looks acceptable to me. I don't think open source needs to factor into it. ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng Thanks Charmk (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is written by user (Gabordemooij). The user name is identical to the language author (Gabor de Mooij) Charmk (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [9], [10]. ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2020 (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.