Deletion of Go! (programming language)

Comment: Several academic references, some of them with reasonable (10-20ish) outside references. Maybe without Google Go this would not have been created - but a lot of relevant and notable topics are not covered in WIkipedia yet. Certainly without Google Go this would never have been proposed for deletion, either (even if we now may get a number of y followup proposals. The current Go-Go! debate only adds to notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: I don’t like how this vote is being handled; having users with under 10 edits come out of the woodwork and vote “keep” is strange (must be some discussion board pointing to this page), and ,  and other policies are not being adhered to.  Please, don’t make this too personal.  For the record, the current vote count is 16 keep - 8 delete; for editors with over 100 edits it’s 6 keep - 7 delete (for over 1000 edits, the vote is 5 Keep - 3 Delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:POINT)

Comment: WP:N|Notability has been established by |reliable sources. Even the naming controversy has contributed to the notability, frankly. Listing edit counts and counting !votes is not really appropriate. Nor is it necessary - the reviewing admin will base a keep/delete decision on more factors than simply raw voting numbers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Most programming languages released to the public are notable; the journal articles and the news coverage vis-a-vis the naming issue strengthen Go!'s claim to notability.  is only a guideline, and I am willing to somewhat |disregard it in this instance as it doesn't work particularly well in the field of programming languages
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:IAR)

Comment: The standards for |notability ''are'' met, and increasing them arbitrarily due to the timing (the article was obviously triggered by Google's language, but so what?) is not a good precedent
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)