Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V (programming language) (4th nomination)

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V (programming language)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

V (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage in a reliable source about the subject. Betseg (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I see coverage of the language. Granted, not all cited sources can be used for notability, but I see articles and books about the language. I see a short discussion of the sources here, but nothing after some were provided. @Betseg can you elaborate on what is wrong with the sources in the article? TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TurboSuperA+, around the same time you posted your opinion on this AfD, the user @Wukuendo left a somewhat inflammatory message on my talk page. Do you know each other by any chance? Betseg (talk) 08:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is the first time I hear of that user's existence. TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Betseg, TurboSuperA+ and I are not the same person, as it looks to be going in that direction. In addition (AFAIK), our Wikipedia histories show we have never edited pages of the same programming language or OS nor hang out in the same circles. Wukuendo (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you two were the same people. A friend of mine notified me that my deletion nomination was posted on the Vlang Discord server, so I thought, with the two messages being so close together, you both might be in that Discord server and might've coordinated your messages. Betseg (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You now have pulled this into casting aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS), are engaging editors with rumors (from your unidentified friends on unidentified platforms), taking this outside the context of Wikipedia (discord servers), and give the appearance of being involved in WP:DOX (personal profiles on external sites). Who is/are the "friend or friends" of yours, that are involved in this, based on your statements?
For the public record, I have never been on the Vlang Discord server. That I even have to make such a statement in defense, is incredible. I have no idea who TurboSuperA+ is in real life. You were also told by both TurboSuperA+ and I, that we didn't know about each other. Yet afterwards, you have persisted in presenting unfounded allegations.
Wikipedia is also not a personal club, and is open to and for the general public, thus you can not control who, what, and where discussions referring to it can take place. Wukuendo (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not on the Vlang discord server, this is the first time I hear of it. TurboSuperA+(connect) 08:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said in my nomination, there is no coverage about the language in any reliable source that I could find. Feel free to link to any articles from reliable sources or books from reliable authors or publishers. Betseg (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The impression is made, of this being very goal orientated towards pushing article removal, while: (1) Bypassing "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD". (2) Ignoring that the article went through Wikipedia's AfC process for notability (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation) and was accepted by the reviewer Sohom Datta (top of article's talk page). For those who don't know, many programming articles didn't go through that process. (3) Ignoring the article's content assessment rating of C-class (above the usual Start-class). (4) Ignoring the relevance and long debates, involving experienced editors, on the article's talk page over sources (many removals and adds). (5) Apparently dismissing the TurboSuperA+ response (above).
I'm left to also wonder, how or why the V article, is the focus and top of one's personal list. For instance, when looking up programming language articles, have randomly come across Nial, Snowball, Toi... V doesn't stand out as the one to start with or focus on. Wukuendo (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This and this are both sources in the article that establish notability. Neither article is particularly long, but the entirety of both articles is dedicated to the programming language and both authors appear to have engineering backgrounds, making them reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote is not an endorsement of Wukuendo's Talk page message or the rant above about this article being specifically targeted. This is only a source quality evaluation. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My usual approach for articles that use non-RS is to remove those sources and see what remains. I find it helpful to have less to wade through, and those sources should be removed in any case. However, the lengthy discussions at Talk:V_(programming_language) indicate that any edits to the article likely will a) be reverted and b) result in a strong reaction. Others have tried to bring this article in line with WP policy and it has eaten up a lot of time and even some administrator minutes. My concern is that since AfD is not cleanup, we have a kind of "my way or the highway" situation, which is a shame. (p.s. 4th AFD!) I'll circle around to see if any progress is made on this proposal that would give me more confidence. Lamona (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not the 4th AfD. The 1st AfD, in 2008, is for a completely different language. The V programming language we are discussing, came out in 2019. I remember requesting this to be fixed, but that didn't happen and a new request for correction has to be filed. Wukuendo (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So it's the third AfD. It was deleted twice in 2020. Presumably today there would be further sources. Many of the listed sources are not WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. This makes it difficult to know how much of the article would remain if those were removed and the unsourced material deleted (as is required by policy). Examples of unacceptable sources are: github, youtube (both of those can be listed in External links, but they can't be used in support of the article), self-published sources (Lyons and the Japanese book), personal blogs or sites (with some exceptions), unpublished slide decks. I would need to check each reference to see if the source could be considered reliable. It's common to ask an editor to point out 2-3 really solid references to save us time at AfD, and it would be great if you could do that. Lamona (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of sources used are mainstream, including linked to notable articles on Wikipedia. Packt Publishing, Nova Science Publisher, Linux Format, TIOBE, MakeUseOf (MUO), Analytics India Magazine (AIM), etc... are solid. Being used in hundreds of Wikipedia articles: MUO [1], AIM [2], Hackaday [3], Linux Format [4], Packt Publishing [5]... Even more, TIOBE index is the most famous and industry recognized program language rankings in the world, and has V in their top 50. Other sources, can have specific or are for typical use reasons, with more elaboration given below. In addition to have been looked over by senior Wikipedia editors, references are doubled and tripled to confirm statements. At a rate much higher than typical.
If a person is not too familiar with programming languages, the typical programming language article on Wikipedia, or take care in the reading of the article's talk history then its easy to take things out of context. It might be good to check other examples: Zig, Gleam, Crystal, Gosu... There is also a general split on language origins, which might also cause confusion. Where you have corporate developed (with large budgets and media campaigns), languages out of academia, and then more individual and grassroots up.
In the case of GitHub, its usage was done under, "primary source may be used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person". Relating to WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:Primary, and discussions under reliable sources noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_352#Github. In those cases, GitHub was used to:
(1) Link to the profile of the creator of V (Alexander Medvednikov) and this is typical of programming language articles created about individuals (not corporations).
(2) The origin of V's mascot and verification of its license. This was requested by senior editor Caleb Stanford, and to resolve those chain of issues.
(3) "V is released and developed through", for the location of the original and present software releases. This is typical of programming language articles.
(4) Additionally there is a 3rd party link on statistical information gathered from GitHub and about V, showing the notability of the repo and who the contributing developers are, but is not GitHub.
In the case of the YouTube link (WP:RSE); "may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher." The video is a presentation given on behalf of SYNCS 2023 (Sydney Computing Society) for the University of Sydney to confirm "language was created as a result of frustration with existing languages being used for personal projects". There was no previous objection made, likely because of its connection to SYNCS 2023, however moving to external links is not an issue.
In the case of Independent Laboratory, that is a Japanese company, with numerous programming and technical books published under them. It can also be argued under subject-matter expert. Wukuendo (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An external link to https://github.com/vlang/v/releases would always lead the reader to the latest release because that info is fungible. Also, I note that the link to the developer is to his github page - a better source is needed. The Simon Knott is a person blog post - not a RS. I perused the Independent Laboratory but am still concerned that it looks pretty informal - however, I do not read Japanese so I might have gotten the wrong idea. (That document has no identifier - ISBN, DOI, etc., which usually means informal.) The youtube is a person giving a talk, not, for example, a video created by an organization under "a reliable publisher." It can be placed in External links, but it essentially has all of the authority of a personal blog post. So, not a RS. I cannot find the Nova Trek book - I don't find it on Amazon, Worldcat, nor Google books. There may be errors in the citation, but I tried ISBN, author and title and got zero.
I realize I'm doing cleanup and need to stop. I'll focus on the sources to see if it meets GNG. However, I do think that statements cited to non-RS need to be removed. Lamona (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that others, along with myself, have no problem with constructive or agreed upon policy based changes. People will generally try to find compromises and help build. On stable and rated articles, personal lists of preferences or desired changes, are usually done on the article's talk page (as was previously done with senior editors) and where other editors also get their chance to give opinions. It is not done as demands from one editor that must be executed by another editor, as if they're subordinate. If a person's expertise is not in computer science or the programming field, that's fine, but there should be awareness on possible misinterpretations or missing particulars. This can be exacerbated, if one ignores an article's talk page or doesn't review the history, while trying to quickly implement personal preferences without consensus or compromise. When debates are on the article's talk page, it's easier to see the history and reference statements.
Simon Knott, for example, arguably falls under the category of subject-matter expert [6], a well known Microsoft developer and software engineer, and this becomes more clear by looking at his portfolio [7]. Thus deserves debate. This is why the senior Wikipedia editors (one of them being an active professor in computer science) who had reviewed it, left that alone.
The Nova Trek book is easily found on Amazon by using the obvious "V programming language" (at least 3 related books come up). Though it should be mentioned, that strangely and just when this situation started, the previously displayed ASIN links for the English language books were stripped off. Until then, it was easy to link to from the article. I put in a bug report about the ASIN link stripping situation. The ASIN is B0DRJMP1HM and the Amazon link is [8].
While it may not be a problem to use a link other than GitHub or reference for V's creator, this is not what is done on several similar articles of non-corporate created programming languages or non-affiliated creators, and it appears it can have a privacy component. A public GitHub profile (that verifies a creator's name), where hundreds of developers are contributing under, does not create that kind of situation. That's at least worthy of discussion. Wukuendo (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you assume that I am not "senior" nor familiar with programming. It would be best to stick to the content of the article. The Trek book appears to be self-published, at least based on Amazon's entry: "Publisher ‏ : ‎ Independently published". Lamona (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't type about you being a senior or not. In fact, my assumption was that you were a senior editor, before checking. If you are a programmer, then that's great. The Trek book itself says published by Wang Press, and so do a number of their other programming books. They also sell programming books in various other locations. Wukuendo (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on Rao (book), and the Hackaday article. The Analytics India article indicated by User:HyperAccelerated has a note that it is based on the V documentation, and it doesn't seem to introduce anything independent. The Packt source is good but is from 2019 and presumably the language has changed considerably. A number of sources turn out to be self-published or not reliable (e.g. conference presentations). While these might provide good information for the article, they don't serve the definition of notability, which is what we address here. Lamona (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
V's documentation [9] is very extensive (over a hundred pages if printed out) and way beyond what could fit in a normal article. It would be natural for a tech writer to use it as a reference (or to draw insights from). Then to summarize, give a perspective, and do a good faith introduction to their readers. They would also likely be under various space and time constraints by the magazine.
Per previous conversation on a different video and mention of the conference presentation, "a video created by an organization", there is a video of the presentation on V (An introduction to V) [10] created by the Debian Conference (DebConf Videos) and is on their channel [11]. It could be introduced as a reference (within specific context). Wukuendo (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • p.s. I did an almost complete source analysis which I could write up if anyone cares to see. Lamona (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Topic is the main subject of several independent, published books; as well as specific references and rationale noted per above. WeWake (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the Lyons and Trex books are both self-published. I don't have enough information on the Independent Laboratory one - it isn't listed in any lists of publishers in Japan, there is no ISBN, and I can't find a web site. Having that info would be very helpful if anyone has it. Lamona (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the other books found and from Independent Laboratory [12] [13]. The Rao and Chakraborty books are not self-published. Also, "self-published doesn't mean bad" (WP:USINGSPS, [14]). Wukuendo (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that there is a difference between the sources that can support the facts of an article, and the sources needed for notability. For notability we must have a reliable source. In this case I cannot even confirm who Independent Laboratory or Nova Trex/Wang are - no web presence, not found in publisher lists, do not have an ISBN range, etc. Recent books by Trex have this statement: This book has been authored with the help of LLM tools ...; "help" could be doing heavy lifting there. My take is that they do not meet the WP definition of "reliable." And as for not "bad", please read the criteria list there for reliable sources. These sources do not meet these criteria: 1) "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" 2) "some form of review process, such as editing or peer review". If it can be shown that these sources do meet the requirements for reliable sources, then we can reconsider whether they support notability. I spent considerable time trying to even confirm the identities of these authors and publishers and could not do that. The fact that the books exist is not sufficient. Lamona (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the Trex book, was introduced as a source by a different editor. On LLM tools, various modern authors and publishers increasingly use such new technology to help them create content, however, it's often impossible (at this time) to make entire books (of hundreds of pages) that are intelligible without human editing.
The other sources can support notability or statements in the article, and contested or debatable sources (as has been done) can be removed (as in the article history) or moved (i.e. further reading only) per suggestion or discussion. As can or has been done on various other programming language articles, during the normal editing process. For wanting to do what's appropriate, we are together. Wukuendo (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2025 (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.