Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nock (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 14:17, 9 April 2019

Latest revision as of 11:03, 8 February 2023

(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 10:

:{{la|Nock (programming language)}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nock (programming language)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 4#{{anchorencode:Nock (programming language)}}|View log]]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks">[http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nock_(programming_language) Stats]</span>)

:({{Find sources|Nock (programming language)}})

No indication of notability '''[[User:Spinningspark|<fontspan style="background:#fafad2; color:#C08000;">Spinning</fontspan>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<fontspan style="color:#4840a0;">Spark</fontspan>]]''' 14:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)</small>

:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 18:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)</small>

* '''Delete''' - The article itself doesn't need to indicate notability, it's our job to determine if the subject is or isn't notable. After a brief search, I cannot find any sources to support its notability. In short, the article can't indicate the subject's notability in this case. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 20:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

*: @[[User:Walter Görlitz]], ''The article itself doesn't need to indicate notability''. Well yes it does. An article stating only that "George Washington was a good man" would be deletable whereas "George Washington was the first presisdent of the United States" would not. Walter, I expect you were implying that I did not follow [[WP:BEFORE]] to check if the subject is notable. Well yes I did and no it's not. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<fontspan style="background:#fafad2; color:#C08000;">Spinning</fontspan>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<fontspan style="color:#4840a0;">Spark</fontspan>]]''' 17:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

::: Well no it doesn't. I'm sorry you don't understand that basic premise. The article can be about a subject that is notable but not explain it. We could delete it or we could improve it. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 17:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

:::: I understand perfectly that poor articles on notable subjects should be kept. I also understand that people who nominate articles without doing even a cursory check for sources are, quite rightly, given a hard time here (but let me say it again, I did do such a check). However nobody ''has'' to do any checking. Nobody can be ''made'' to rewrite articles. The George Washington example is not a real case. If it existed it would take 10 seconds to find sourcces and 30 seconds to write something notable in the article. It would be perverse to AfD an article that could be fixed in under a minute by anybody. But what about an editor that has written reams of promotional junk about a new variety of yoga? It ''may'' conceivably be notable (but probably not), but if no one takes on a cleanup it is better to delete and give a new editor a clean sheet than to keep an article that is essentially just an advert. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<fontspan style="background:#fafad2; color:#C08000;">Spinning</fontspan>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<fontspan style="color:#4840a0;">Spark</fontspan>]]''' 18:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

::::: [[:WP:DEL-REASON]] items 7 & 8 are the criteria to use here. The fact that the article does not itself list these sources is not a reason. And your nomination stated that there is "No indication of notability". Maybe I'm assuming that you mean that there is no indication in the article, so I'm sorry if I'm reading into that statement. Perhaps "No evidence of notability" would be more clear, or even, "I could not find anything to support that this subject is notable by performing searches. The article certainly doesn't provide any support for notability." I think we are discussing the same issue now. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 16:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' millions of personal software projects out there. The age where a complex public CS-focused machine language was important by merits of its existence or a couple dedicated fans ended about 25 years ago. --[[User:Monk of the highest order|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">Monk of the highest order</fontspan>]]^{[[User talk:Monk of the highest order|(t)]]} 19:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - Can't find sources to establish notability. Probably [[WP:TOOSOON]]. ~[[user talk:Kvng|KvnG]] 18:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>