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

Revision as of 03:33, 10 July 2011

Revision as of 15:55, 10 July 2011

Line 4:

:{{la|G (programming language)}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G (programming language)|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 9#{{anchorencode:G (programming language)}}|View log]]</noinclude>)

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

LacksUntil July 9, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G_%28programming_language%29&oldid=418301857 was a redirect] to [[G-code]]. This new article lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by [[WP:GNG]] and [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. Wikipedia is not for [[WP:PROMOTION]]. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 20:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

:I was invited to move this article to my user page, but I am not the owner of the "G" programming language, only the initiator of the article, so why would I put it there? I put it [[G (programming language)|here]] simply for completeness, to add a language that has been omitted and looks interesting. I'd like to cite "Wikipedia does not have firm rules", one of the Pillars of Wikipedia. [[User:Drquim|Drquim]] ([[User talk:Drquim|talk]]) 02:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

::But Wikipedia does have guidelines that editors follow to develop [[WP:Consensus]] in making decisions. You'll find help on how an AfD works at [[WP:AFDFORMAT]]. In deciding whether to keep an article, the question is always, are there reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability? On Wikipedia, all of these terms have slightly more technical meanings than you might expect, so it's worth reading the material at [[WP:GNG]]. Here, it's not enough that something ''seems'' notable, i.e., that people not connected to the subject ''should'' take note (because it ''seems'' notable), they have to actually ''do it'' and they have to do it in reliable independent secondary sources. [[WP:RS]] As a practical matter, for a typical software product, that usually means citing a couple magazine articles or mentions in a couple books. Currently, the article doesn't have that and when I Googled, I couldn't find any. Hope this helps (and explains the suggestion you got about moving the article to a page in your user space and continuing working on it as you look for sources.) [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)