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. GitHub stars and sub-reddits may be indicators of notability, there is no policy-based argument for considering them actual evidence of notability. The award could be seen as such, but this position has little support. Vanamonde (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Egison[edit]

Egison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Too soon for encyclopedic notability.The award hardly propels the language to automatic-notability.Additionally, I can only locate this piece. ∯WBG^converse 10:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —AE (talk • contributions) 11:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - Its GitHub star count that indicates the popularity of the language as an open-source software seems to be big enough to be an article of the encyclopedia. Additionally, the three accepted papers to the international conferences also indicate the notability as an academic language. TurtleDoor (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The award is an award for the creator, and might go to his notability. But neither stars on github nor brand-new research papers all with the creator as author are convincing evidence of notability. Google doesn't suggest that anyone independent of Egi has written about this to any meaningful extent. So looks like a TOOSOON delete to me. --JBL (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Three papers by the inventor (conference proceedings at that :/ ) do not demonstrate notability, and there seems to be no secondary coverage. WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Seems to have a bit of traction in the pattern matching crowd, a wee buzz about it and not much else. The prize does seem significant according to the translations from the Rakuten Institute of Technology site. scope_creep (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Scope creep, Bit of traction? What helped you to reach that assessment? The brand-new research papers all with the creator as author ?!

  And, the award does not a summer make. ∯WBG^converse 13:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ∯WBG, I found a sub Reddit pattern matching crowd discussing the language, they seemed quite keen on it. There wasn't a great many people on it <1500, but they were discussing a whole bunch of stuff. It seems to be designed with them in mind. That was the only information I found, anywhere. Its truly bleeding edge. Regarding the award, they think it is important, while it is not classed as important on here, it may be notable, and has been awarded twice in this category, once for Ruby. It is not often that languages get an award, when they kick off. It a software award. It could be notable, but don't know. It is called Software Japan Award and is awarded by the Information Processing Society of Japan equivalent to the Association for Computing Machinery or the British Computer Society. As it is a learned society, they have to vote to elect who gets the award, making it a notable award, similar to the ACM Awards. scope_creep (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Github stars, subreddit enthusiasm, and subjective opinions of "buzz" do not count for notability. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Possibly but what about the award? User:FenixFeather. Github stars were never mentioned. scope_creep (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Github stars were mentioned by the very first "keep" vote. --JBL (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure awards don't impact notability either. The reason sources are so prized for notability is that they're the key to writing a solid, encyclopedic article that isn't going to be OR or a permastub forever. Egison might be on the rise, but as of right now, doesn't have enough coverage for a Wikipedia article. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course an award is an indicator of notability -- it is an instance of the awardee being noted by the broader world. The question is whether it is sufficient. (I personally don't think so.) --JBL (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2018 (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.