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

Content deleted Content added
Line 29:
:*'''Comment''' &ndash; The article is not nominated for deletion based on obscurity, but rather because it lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of [[WP:N|notability]]. All articles in Wikipedia must be [[WP:V| verifiable]] using [[WP:RS]]. [[User:Ttonyb1|<span style="font-weight:bold; color:blue; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> <i>ttonyb</i></span>]] ([[User talk:Ttonyb1#top|talk]]) 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per the [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Afnix+%28programming+language%29%22 lack] of significant coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The sole result is a copy of the Wikipedia article. A [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Afnix%22+programming&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 Google Scholar search] and a [http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Afnix+(programming+language)%22#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbs=bks:1&q=%22Afnix%22+programming Google Books search] return no significant coverage. I note that the article is unsourced: The core policy [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] mandates deletion. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''&nbsp; [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:BURDEN]] are '''content''' policies.&nbsp; If someone challenges that content in the article is sourced, they might put <nowiki>{{cn}}</nowiki> templates on such content, and following policy there would be a time to delete that content.&nbsp; WP:V adds, "But in practice not everything need actually be attributed."&nbsp; This AfD discussion is not about the content of this article, but whether the topic is '''notable''', [[WP:N]].&nbsp; [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 23:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)