Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirah (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. Although it would be nice if those sources were actually used in the article to create content instead of just being linked to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirah (programming language)

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

Largely promotional article by the language's creator. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Only source in the article is to the author's blog. Sources mentioned on the article's talk page are largely blogs as well. Google web, book, news, and scholar searches on the title or the title and "Ruby" bring up nothing relevant. I hesitate to call the article spam but since the article was created by the language's creator and so little coverage is apparently out there, it appears to be a promotional article. RadioFan (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Andrewmc123 13:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the language's creator, but since initially creating it others have made larger contributions.

I mentioned in the article's talk page that the "Mirah" name is recent, and the previous name "Duby" does have more references online. Many (most?) of these are third-party blogs, I admit (here and here, for example), some are blog posts I wrote that were promoted to community articles on JavaWorld (here and here), some are articles initiated by conferences I have spoken at (here and here), and some are tech news outlets that have contacted me for more information (such as here, and another more general article from InfoQ is in the works.) If any of these would be considered reliable enough, I would be happy to reference them in the original article.

For what it's worth, I didn't open the article for self-promotion...I did it primarily because articles on similar languages existed (no, I'm not trying to use that as justification...but it was the presence of those articles that convinced me it would be ok to open this one) and because it seemed like there was enough interest from folks in programming language circles to warrant an article. I've also been invited to a half-dozen conferences in the past year to speak about Mirah/Duby (RubyConf 2009, JAX London, Øredev, Strange Loop, Emerging Languages Camp at OSCON, Qcon SF and London, and others)...I know that doesn't qualify as notability from reputable sources, but people do seem to want to know about the language.

I also appreciate the desire to avoid self-promoting articles. I have not created an article on myself for this exact reason, and I agree that such articles are at the very least in bad taste and should be discouraged or removed. However, I didn't expect that creating this article would draw in more users or bring additional fame, notoriety, or success to Mirah. My only thought was that Mirah has some interesting features (from a programming-language point of view), and seemed to be gaining acceptance as part of the historical pantheon of programming languages. Based on that, I figured some small article would be good to have in Wikipedia. What additional information would help avoid deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Headius (talk • contribs) 07:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed my bad links above...sorry for the newbishness. Headius (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I saw no malice in your creating and editing this article about what is essentially your invention. I described the article as "largely promotional" and brought it here for further discussion in case I was missing something in my searches for coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. If it were pure promotion I would have tagged it for speedy deletion as spam but I dont think thats the case here. Perhaps its the name change that makes finding those reliable sources difficult. Coverage in blogs is great but they generally dont cut it as reliable sources for purposes of determining notability here. If any of the conferences could be demonstrated as notable (i.e. they have articles here and they themselves have been covered in 3rd party sources such as newspapers or trade magazines), the proceedings from those conferences could be referenced. Unfortunately today all we have is a single reference to your blog so while this might one day be notable, that day doesn't appear to be today based on the article and its references. --RadioFan (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, then I think we may have a path forward. At least some of the conferences at which I've presented Duby/Mirah have had coverage, and the upcoming OSCON, where I'll present it again, already has coverage on Wikipedia and in trade media. A link to my Mirah-related talks at OSCON 2010 are here and here. These are both future talks, but my bag is already packed for the trip. I should be able to find similar notability for the other conferences I've spoken at. Are we on the right track? Headius (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have presented several talks on Mirah(Duby), I see 9 references on SpeakerRate. Here is a video of Ryan Brown describing Mirah(Duby). I also have production app, written entirely in Mirah, here in a sample app. I reference Mirah(Duby) on our blog, and I see developers talking about mirah and duby on our google group. Upcoming talks here and here on Mirah.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwoodell (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The OReily conference would be a reliable source here but both users Headius and Johnwoodell appear to have a conflict of interest here and should avoid editing this article as they are the authors of the paper in question to be presented a the conference. So far we have a number of blogs as references and a you tube video. The only possible reliable sources have some WP:COI mucking the picture up a bit. It's very difficult to determine the notability of this subject as a result. Aren't there any reliable sources you gentlemen haven't authored? Has the language been covered in one of the many Linux, Java or other computing magazines? That would make things much easier here.--RadioFan (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does something like this article on O'Reilly Community count? It's another interview with me, but I think that will be hard to avoid. I also know press folks at "normal" news outlets that probably would be interested in writing an article on Mirah, but I'm reluctant to request such a thing since the project is still evolving. So it's notable, but not "finished" enough yet that we'd want to e.g. make a big public splash about it. Perhaps a tricky situation. Headius (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also a bit confused why Johnwoodell would have a conflict of interest. He is interested in the language, but you would expect that from most people editing the article. He has not directly contributed to the project (I don't think he even has commit rights) and would certainly be qualified as a "user" or "community member". Does anyone who presents or publishes anything on a subject have a conflct of interest when editing articles on that subject? Honestly trying to understand, not trying to argue... Headius (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is an author on one of the references that is being used to demonstrate notability. Outside of the O'Reily interview linked above only sources that have been discussed so far have been authored by you or Johnwoodell. Its difficult to show notabilty this way. Earlier someone mentioned coverage in trade news sources. If citable examples of this could be provided, this would be much easier. We are trying too meet WP:N's requirement of significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sources above. The fact that RS have been authored by an editor who has a COI doesn't make them "less" secondary, RS sources. Conference proceedings and the O'Reilly Community article are enough for notability of a technical subject. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:24, 19 July 2010 (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.