Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measuring programming language popularity
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Star Mississippi 01:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Measuring programming language popularity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads like an essay someone submitted for homework, rather than something that should be included in an encyclopaedia. AtlasDuane (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. AtlasDuane (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- delete - reeks of original research. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY. This is the very definition of WP:OR. The thesis is here:
... that sum up to say Python is the top programming language of 2021.
The rest is original research. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) - Delete This article is a WP:OR disaster. Take 'em down chief. IncompA 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per Sirfurboy casualdejekyll 23:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete WP:OR. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment As evidenced by all the primary sources in the article, measuring programming language popularity is an active field of endeavor and possibly a notable topic. What we would need would be secondary reliable sources comparing and contrasting the kinds of metrics developed and how they are measured. There are secondary sources like [1] and [2] that take this approach, but I don't believe they are reliable. Hence I agree with deletion for now, but am happy to reconsider should secondary RS be found. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}17:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC) - Delete per WP:OR, but in principle, it could be promising once the research catches up. Mason (talk) 13:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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.