Talk:Ring (programming language)

Copy
There seems to be some copying or close paraphrasing from the official site (see report). I am unable to determine whether the copyright used by this source is compatible with Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. ~Kvng (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the source is compatible with Wikipedia - The original content is a free-open source project that uses MIT License for the source code, website content and the documentation. Charmk (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability
Evidence in cited sources:, , , , ~Kvng (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Previous deletion
Our guiding principle in deciding whether to accept drafts is whether it is WP:LIKELY to be deleted once accepted. This article has been previously deleted a little over a year ago and the discussion was not pretty. It is unlikly to get the benefit of doubt in a second hearing at AfD. Of the sources I've identified as potential evidence for notability, only InfoWorld was published after the delete discussion. That doesn't strike me as compelling enough to reopen this. , what has changed since the deletion discussion that would convince AfD participants that this subject is now notable? ~Kvng (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Beside the InfoWorld article, a Book published by Apress which is a notable publisher, The book is written by one of the contributors to the Ring project who contributed to the project while writing the book. Ring Team in 2018 - Ring Team in 2020. Also I discovered the DotNetPro coverage after the deletion discussion. Since this is an open-source project we can relax our criteria and accept references like GeekBrains this one. Also an entry by Softpedia Charmk (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've reviewed the deletion discussion and my read is that this is not going to be enough to get a different result. I can ping the participants of the previous discussion here if you want to keep pushing on this. ~Kvng (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I trust your evaluation, we can wait until an extra references appears then we continue. Charmk (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Notability (2021)
Evidence in cited sources - The best three references:

(1) Three articles by Dr. Rangarajan Krishnamoorthy (India):, ,

(2) New printed book (In Arabic Language) by Ghanem (Egypt) :

(3) InfoWorld Article by Paul Krill (USA) :


 * The article is updated using new references. Charmk (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The first source seems to be WP:SPS by some person who blogs about "Software, Music, Photography, Homeopathy, etc.". It is unclear what publisher is responsible for the second source, and whether they would be considered reliable. Colin M (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From WP:SPS We have "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." and the articles in the first source is written by an expert (Ph.D. in computer science from 2000, ACM and IEEE member, have publications in IEEE from 1995 (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/538273), practical experience in software development and CEO of: https://mmsindia.com/ ).
 * The publisher in the second source is known in Egypt, the book writer (Eng. Ghanem) have written many Arabic programming books from 2005 about different programming languages and these books are published by many publishers like دار المعارف which is well known publisher in the middle east.
 * Ring is a free-open source project. We relax our inclusion criteria for free & open source. Charmk (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this page has moved out of draft when there has been no consensus reached, and the most recent comment was ""This was deleted at AfD in July 2019. While more sources have materialized since then, it doesn't appear to be enough to reverse the AfD consensus. See talk page for more details and discussion." peterl (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment is written from over one year. The article is updated after that and I notified the comment writer about these updates three months ago. Then the article is submitted and is accepted by other reviewers after removing the protection that prevent the article creation. Charmk (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And regarding WP:SPS, do note "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources" peterl (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the references are reliable enough and the information exist in multiple sources. Charmk (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)