Mojo (programming language): Was sent to draft by NPP, banged back into mainspace with the claim of multiple RS. I don't see them here and WP:BEFORE shows no record of enduring influence or prominence/notability as a language tool.  And the article's promotional, to boot.  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology , Computing ,  and Software .  Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 13:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Week delete .  InfoWorld seems fine.  Others do not seem to be independent.  Definitely has the feel of a promotional article, too.  — siro χ o 14:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Update, I am fine with draftify proposed below as well — siro χ o 20:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Merge (see comment below).  The sources are in the front: 2 infoworld, the register, and analytics india magazine.  As far as I can tell they are all independent, reliable, and cover the language in depth, as required for WP:GNG .  The fact that infoworld wrote about it again shows there is also WP:SUSTAINED coverage.  There is more coverage too, they're just blogs and stuff that's not really reliable.  But what is there seems sufficient, and I'm sure if something interesting happens, e.g. it goes out of beta, there will be another round of news coverage, allowing improvements in the article's tone and quality to make it less hype-y.  Mathnerd314159 ( talk ) 17:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I concur with @ Mathnerd314159 .  A quick news search of "Mojo programming language" will show a number of reliable sources including Medium, Adafruit, and yahoo! finance.  Additionally, the project lead for Mojo, Chris Lattner , is the creator of several widely used projects including the LLVM , Clang , and MLIR (co-founder) compiler frameworks, as well as Swift , Apple's de facto programming language.  If Lattner's record holds, Mojo has a high likelihood of being widely adopted among machine-learning researchers and systems developers alike once it is released to the public.  I will look into revising the page to reflect the wider range of sources available.  Zramsey11 ( talk ) 17:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Medium is not considered reliable per WP:RSP .  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The above vote being Zramsey11 's sole contribution to Wikipedia...  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 04:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify in my opinion, this article is a bit early but subject may continue to develop and meet notability.  The InfoWorld article mentioned above seems good, more sources like that would help the article to sufficiently meet the requirements without much doubt.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 05:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  The article may seem iffy to some now but there will only continue to be more sources on the topic.  Not to say I think the current sources are bad though.  Rlink2 ( talk ) 16:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That seems like WP:CRYSTAL though, I agree it might become notable but right now feels somewhat premature.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Complex / Rational 18:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Even treating this as a corporate product (which I agree is the best approach at this stage), this seems to meet WP:CORPDEPTH based on the InfoWorld and Analytics India articles.  Both appear to provide hundreds of words of in-depth independent analysis that provides source material for a decent article, or as CORPDEPTH puts it they make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub .  This in-depth review from The New Stack , a source I'm not familiar with but which is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles, also seems fine.  At least on the surface all three of these appear to meet WP:SIRS .  And there's certainly nothing surprising about such an initiative attracting this level of attention in the current environment.  That said, if there are genuine and substantial problems with the sources, I'd suggest merging to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo .  -- Visviva ( talk ) 05:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm a skeptical of the independence of Analytics India source due to their "branded content" program: [5] "Syndicated brand material or custom featured stories are great ways to share your viewpoint."  I'm very skeptical of The New Stack , they seem to be the "journalism" arm of a tech investment firm: [6] [7] .  And the author is referred to as a developer marketing writer [8] Currently the only source I trust is InfoWorld, and to be fair, it's a good article.  — siro χ o 05:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I hadn't seen WP:CORPDEPTH , but looking at it now there is a line about discounting "any material that is substantially based on press releases ( churnalism ), even if published by independent sources".  The register article is substantially based on quoting the Modular blog post announcing Mojo and the non-independent fast.ai article, so I think would count as churnalism.  And maybe the first infoworld article, it doesn't cite any sources and the talking points ("Full compatibility", "low-level control", etc.) are suspiciously similar to the blog post.  But I think the Analytics India is independent - the author is on the staff, not a contributor, so it's not syndicated material, and the comparison with Julia seems out of place for a corporate piece.  And the second infoworld article seems like a legitimate "I read Mojo's documentation" kind of piece.  I did see the New Stack article but I think it's a contributed article (as described in [9] ), as the author is not listed on the staff , (although, she has many more posts than 1 per 3 months, so maybe she does have a close relationship with TNS?).  But, regardless, from the colloquial language like "Advertising, amirite?"  I don't think it went through much of an editorial review, let alone fact-checking like a reputable news source.  I think it just counts as a blog post hence unreliable.  So that leaves us at 2 reliable sources.  I like the merging idea, certainly in this discussion Zramsey11's primary argument for notability was that the team is led by Chris Lattner and he has a good track record of releasing languages, so discussing Mojo in the context of Chris Lattner seems warranted.  Mathnerd314159 ( talk ) 16:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Merge to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo .  I agree with other participants that Infoworld is IMO SIGCOV by GNG standards (though I'm neutral on whether it meets the mark using the stricter corporate product standards) and is a RS.  However, I'm not especially convinced by the other sources.  NewStack has an about us page but no clear editorial policies and the author does not appear to be a subject-matter-expert ( developer marketing writer is very questionable), so I don't think it's a reliable source.  Likewise, Analytics India lacks a clear editorial process and the branded content program and other info in the abouts/advertising section doesn't give me much confidence.  I would be more inclined to think it's reliable had there been clear subject-matter-expertise among its stuff or widespread USEBYOTHERS that I'm not seeing here, though I am not 100% sure whether this is unreliable or not as I'm not especially familiar with Indian technology-related sources.  Otherwise, my search on Google mainly found blogs and developer sites that doesn't seem to meet the requirements of GNG or NPRODUCT , so to me (albeit weakly) this doesn't meet GNG.  However, there's some sourced info from RS (Infoworld) that would warrant a merge/redirect to Chris Lattner#Modular and Mojo as an ATD.  VickKiang (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I heard about it recently.  As a software developement project it has a space on Wikipedia, per long consensus.  Coverage on three continents.  scope_creep Talk 10:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, D u s t i *Let's talk! * 20:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - seems pretty rare for Scope creep to vote keep on AFD.  Reviewed the current sources again, guess they should be good enough.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 06:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - reliable sources with significant coverage found: [10] [11] [12] 0x Deadbeef →∞ ( talk to me ) 19:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's a tricky call, but I think that the InfoWorld and Analytics India articles are sufficient for WP:GNG .  MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis please Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Spartaz Humbug!  14:55, 29 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep