Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo (programming language)


 * 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 redirect to Interactive_fiction. After discarding a few single-purpose accounts and taking into account the canvassing concerns, it seems like there is no evidence here that Hugo meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. To the people who voted !keep, please remember that notability here is not merely about fame or popularity, it's about how many independent and reliable sources exist about a topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hugo (programming language)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't believe this interactive fiction programming language passes WP:GNG. None of the cited sources are reliable, and only one is independent, but that source is a blog post that merely mentions that one game was written in Hugo. I have tried to find other independent sources, but to no avail. Article previously redirected to Interactive fiction, but it was undone. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 20:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

— Lisatordis1981 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Work was being done to add citations and references to this article when it was nominated for deletion, and we'll happily continue through this process. :) Also, my understanding is that Rock Paper Shotgun is a reliable source. Lisatordis1981 (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rock, Paper, Shotgun source did not mention Hugo anywhere in it. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 21:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rock, Paper, Shotgun website has articles which include "IF Only: Looking back at 2016 in Interactive Fiction" as well as "Splice Of Life: Cryptozookeeper" that go into Hugo, its value to Interactive Fiction, as well as a number of award winning games that were created with it. David Bothfield (talk)  12:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait - Frankly, I get the feeling that Hugo's one of those articles that would not have secondary references recently. I suggest we try looking for offline sources, or even possibly archived sources before the article gets deleted for lack of notability. – 🐈? (talk) (ping me!) 22:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I strongly oppose this deletion. There are about four major programming systems specifically used for creating Interactive fiction and Hugo happens to be one of the least complicated and most accessible, especially for people with limited programming experience. Not listing it here, first makes the language inaccessible to those who might want to try doing a game and find one of the other systems much more tedious or complicated. (I have found it to be the case; an interactive fiction game I wrote easily using Hugo has become a hair-pulling experience trying to port it over to TADS.)


 * Second, to the extent the various authoring systems are cross-listed it allows someone to look at this or maybe one of the other ones and decide if they should use one of them. Third, it provides a snapshot of the current state of the art in the technology used for this sort of endeavor.


 * Realize that creation of Interactive Fiction is not like writing websites, creating Android phone apps or coding a payroll system. They are not going to be used by a lot of people. A lot more people will be interested in the current X86-64 bit processor than in the PDP-11 or the Decsystyem 20, but they are still important in order that this site be what it claims: an encyclopedic overview of knowledge and so it must try to completely cover items which now are of only historic interest.


 * Where there is a problem domain of some kind, all significant solutions in that domain should be included where the solution is/was relevant to a significant segment to the population. Now, maybe only 2,000 people have written or will write an Adventure game or Interactive fiction using an authoring tool (before languages tailored specifically to write Interactive fiction were developed one had to use a fairly complicated general purpose language like C, Fortran or Basic, as well as implement command processing, designing game mechanics, and so on.) So, in that sort of case, an article about any particular tool or system might only be of interest to a few hundred people out of the couple thousand having an interest, but in that case it is of crucial interest.


 * Plus, Wikipedia is the "go to location" for coverage of esoteric subjects and by providing that comprehensive coverage we should do so when there is a reasonably high interest relative to the size of the audience of that problem domain. Interest in Interactive Fiction Authoring systems is narrow but it is an important part of the history and future of computing, and since we can be comprehensive, we should be.


 * Hugo may not be very familiar to the general audience of game playing people, but I suspect it is well known among the community of people who write those types of programs, and that should be enough reason for it to be included here. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I would say keep, fairly esoteric language of a type I've not seen before. scope_creep (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Real NC (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — David Bothfield (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Many good games have been created with Hugo, so I'd say that's notable. Here's some of them. RNC (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Besides the historical and contemporary significance of Hugo, it is a very accessible program that is perfect for beginners interested in getting into game development, as well as being more than capable of meeting the needs of more advanced programmers. This makes it a perfect article for Wikipedia where people come to enlighten themselves on new avenues of exploration. David Bothfield (talk)  12:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear closer, I smell canvassing. czar  07:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it. I was wondering how there was no sockpuppetry. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 07:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect to Interactive_fiction, as it stood for the last year. What sources are being used here to prove significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) ? Because I don't see them beneath the refbombing. According to the article history, other editors don't see them either. czar  07:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me)  07:46, 23 December 2016 (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.