The result was Keep. No consensus is likely to emerge to delete, the opposite if anything, and the debate is becoming heated. Guy ( Help!) 11:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N. Most of the article is sourced off the author's own papers and book, and there is no significant third party coverage. The language has been mentioned in only a few papers, and a close looks at them show that the mentions are trivial. In most of these papers, Go! only appears as part of surveys of programming languages. Laurent ( talk) 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. No consensus is likely to emerge to delete, the opposite if anything, and the debate is becoming heated. Guy ( Help!) 11:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N. Most of the article is sourced off the author's own papers and book, and there is no significant third party coverage. The language has been mentioned in only a few papers, and a close looks at them show that the mentions are trivial. In most of these papers, Go! only appears as part of surveys of programming languages. Laurent ( talk) 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply