Content deleted Content added
Jonovision (talk | contribs) |
→Vandalism: comment |
||
Line 147:
:::The Erlang reference only mentions Go! in a footnote -- the statement that Go! influenced Erlang (which was released earlier) is at best a synthesis (see [[WP:NOR]]), but I'd outright say it's of dubious veracity.
:::As you can see, I ''suggested'' the article should be deleted ''if no additional sources could be found to establish notability''. The normal Wikipedia process is to flag an article for deletion and let people comment on it first, but an overzealous editor didn't bother to wait, which is unfortunate, since it led to the poor tone of the deletion debate. I'm just trying to improve the article here, I'm not trying to set it up for some future deletion. Please [[WP:AGF|give me the benefit of the doubt]] and don't accuse me of such things. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 08:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually, there are no requirements to discuss the deletion before nominating an article. In this case, the main person discussing with you was the author of the article, and I doubt he would have admitted it was worthy of deletion even if he thought so. That's why I've nominated it directly so that more people can be involved. An AfD is just that - we discuss the sources and notability, and decide if they fit within the criteria; there's no need to take it personally. The problem is that it went far too passionate because of the Google issue, and with weird assumptions of bad faith (as if there was some kind of Google conspiracy against the article), and that lead to a very poor debate. I still think the sources are very thin but I obviously won't nominate it again for deletion. [[User:WikiLaurent|Laurent]] ([[User talk:WikiLaurent|talk]]) 10:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
| |||