Content deleted Content added
notability |
Previous deletion |
||
Line 9:
==Notability==
Evidence in cited sources: [https://www.infoworld.com/article/3572395/ring-language-upgrade-focuses-on-webassembly.html], [https://www.dotnetpro.de/diverses/sprachen/ring-flexibel-einfach-schnell-1571947.html], [https://medium.com/sitesonic/ring-programming-language-what-do-you-need-to-know-23c51b315e4d], [https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1200766/Using-the-Natural-Language-Programming-Library-NLP], [https://www.ciklum.com/blog/new-programming-languages-a-hype-or-reality/] ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 17:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
==Previous deletion==
Our guiding principle in deciding whether to accept drafts is whether it is [[WP:LIKELY]] to be deleted once accepted. This article has been [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language)|previously deleted]] a little over a year ago and the discussion was not pretty. It is unlikly to get the benefit of doubt in a second hearing at AfD. Of the sources I've identified as potential evidence for notability, only InfoWorld was published after the delete discussion. That doesn't strike me as compelling enough to reopen this. {{u|Charmk}} what has changed since the deletion discussion that would convince AfD participants that this subject is now notable? ~[[User:Kvng|Kvng]] ([[User talk:Kvng|talk]]) 18:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
|