Talk:Cython/Archive 1

Notability

This article appears to lack any reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:RELIABLE. I hatted it but the hat was removed by Qwertyus, citing "Van Rossum, Ewing and scikits-learn; also 2-column reflist" in his edit summary. But the Van Rossum and and Ewing articles are merely posts to a mailing list and scikit-learn isn't even a source, it's another machine-learning tool for Python. That's nowhere near satisfying the requirements in WP:RELIABLE that the sources be "reliable, published sources" (emphasis in the original) and that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Msnicki (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reason to remove the article, it's a reason to improve the sources. I've replaced {{notability}} with {{primary sources}}. If you do want to argue importance, it's a well-established project used by thousands of programmers. ··gracefool☺ 13:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The notability tag should remain. Notability has nothing to do with how many thousands of programmers use this product. If none of them ever writes about it, it doesn't clear the hurdle for notability, which is all and only about what other people say in reliable sources as explained in the guidelines sections I cited. So far as I can see from the sources provided, the only people who write about Cython are the people who created it. Sorry. Msnicki (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this has basically changed now. I see lots of references from different sources. Scoder (talk) 08:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. On top of this, WP is not going to delete an article whose subject is trending up on Google Trends as Cython is. So this entire discussion can be archived. And since there is no activity here for a year that is what I'll be doing in a moment... DavidBrooksPokorny (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)