`  : The notability tag doesn't always mean the article in question is not notable. I usually give my judgment on its notability in the edit comment  for the Ptolemy project I only said that the article did not assert its notability (which it didn't, it only had a link to the Berkeley page). I've heard of Ptolemy, but I don't know much about it; I got to the page by following the ``visual programming languages`` category. If it isn't a programming language, it probably shouldn't be tagged in a PL category. Since Ptolemy is an academic project, there should be notable academic sources that cover it. I would count a paper with hundreds of citations to be a notable academic source. Since you added a reference to such a paper, I have no further qualms with the article with respect to notability! )  :I have a couple of metrics in mind for establishing notability of programming languages. First, there's no question about popular languages. If a language is popular, it is probably also notable. It shouldn't be hard to find secondary, non-random-blog sources discussing the language.  :So the problem then is: how do we establish notability for non-popular languages? One way would be to find credible (e.g., highly cited) academic sources. However, many academic papers introduce languages to introduce or explain concepts; I think in this case the novelty is more in the concept, not the language and therefore discussion of the language should be a section of a Wikipedia article about the concept. For instance, in my research area, ``functional reactive programming`` was introduced in a highly acclaimed (best paper award, highly cited) paper. That paper also discussed a domain-specific language called Fran. Is Fran notable? In my opinion, no. It is functional reactive programming that is notable, and the article on FRP should discuss Fran. Really, they could have not given a name to Fran and the paper would have been just as good. In other words, languages are not necessarily notable because they implement notable concepts. However, if a highly cited paper was about the myriad design choices that led to the creation of a language that embodied those principles, then I would say the language is notable. If the paper is ABOUT the language, then the citations reflect the language's influence on computer science.   :I think the corner case is where a language has no credible academic sources, but is still notable. SNOBOL is a good example. It isn't popular in academia or in the mainstream, but it was clearly a very influential language. In this case we just need to make precise the ways in which it was influential on computer science. I'm not sure of any hard and fast criteria for doing this, but I'm open to suggestions!  :I don't think metrics such as code size or number of contributors is a good idea. First of all, an article created by someone else without my knowledge about my website was deleted, when it is a collaborative project with hundreds involved  clearly there is precedent against this idea. Second, what would you actually write about a project with a large code base but isn't notable for other reasons? All you could discuss is the project itself, which isn't good enough in my opinion  we have to establish some continuity! What influence does this project have on the rest of the world? Why should anyone care? For instance Factor (programming language) is a big project (or so I hear), but I wouldn't call it notable by any stretch of the imagination. All of that source code could be deleted, and nobody aside from the contributors would care very much (sorry guys!)  :I think it would also be a good idea to say what things DON'T establish notability. Here are some ideas:  :* Relation to Google. Just because Google was in some way involved doesn't make it notable. The Factor page lists a tech talk given at Google as a source. Who cares? Google is huge  people talk there all the time, people come up with non-notable projects at Google all the time, etc. :* Publication in an academic journal/conference. There are a lot of mediocre academic sources. :* A novel combination of language features. If there isn't a reliable source to back this up, it's original research.  :Thanks for your comment!   `