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

Content deleted Content added
+ delete; no reliable SECONDARY sources so it fails WP:GNG
Line 27:
::Are you sure that's an independent source and not written by the creator of the language? Also the other source used in the article is just a listing and uses this paper you've linked to as its source. So that's really only one source as a directory listing isn't generally considered a good source. [[User:SQGibbon|SQGibbon]] ([[User talk:SQGibbon|talk]]) 07:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:::The paper may (or may not) have been written by the creator of the language, but it's been published by the ACM (the preeminent organization in the field) in a peer-reviewed journal. It is thus an independent source. You are correct that the source listed is basically a very limited and poor reference to the paper I listed, so I'll attempt to round up a few more. The ACM paper alone is sufficient to write a detailed and descriptive article; regardless, I'll endeavour to find more sources to strengthen its case for inclusion. [[User:Throwaway85|Throwaway85]] ([[User talk:Throwaway85|talk]]) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
:::: The paper ''is'' written by the creator of the language, which means it cannot be used to prove the existance of reliable ''secondary'' sources (per the [[WP:GNG|GNG]]). --<font color="#006600">[[User:Mukkakukaku|'''M'''û'''ĸĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û'''ĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û]]</font> <sub><small>([[User talk: Mukkakukaku|blah?]])</small></sub> 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 
*'''Delete'''. The source listed immediately previous is written by the creator of the language, which makes it a primary source. The language still fails the general notability guidelines which call for reliable ''secondary'' sources. --<font color="#006600">[[User:Mukkakukaku|'''M'''û'''ĸĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û'''ĸ'''â'''ĸ'''û]]</font> <sub><small>([[User talk: Mukkakukaku|blah?]])</small></sub> 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)