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

Revision as of 03:45, 11 July 2011

Revision as of 15:24, 11 July 2011

Line 13:

*'''Delete''' or restore the redirect. Despite the comments on [[User talk:Drquim]], I still hope that [[User:Drquim|Drquim]] is willing to engage in a civil discussion. Just in case: developing an article in user space is a technique I have used until enough reliable sources can be found to justify inclusion. For example, this language could certainly be notable in the future, for example, if a trade press or academic writes an article on it. At that point it would be welcome; I am generally inclusionist, but also prefer quality articles over quantity. [[User:W Nowicki|W Nowicki]] ([[User talk:W Nowicki|talk]]) 17:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - no assertion of notability, no independent references. (Restoring redirect would also be acceptable.) --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 03:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''- No independent references and I think a case can be made that this is [[WP:Promotion]], as the article creator is associated with the business that created the language. I also think the lack of independent and reliable sources make it pretty clear that [[WP:N]] is not satisfied. Finally, changing the redirect without any sort of discussion was inappropriate, as [[WP:N]] of [[G-code]] is well established. For now, the redirect should be restored and the article deleted. Let some enthusiastic user of the G programming language write up a new article once it receives broader and more verifiable coverage. [[User:Sailing to Byzantium|Sailing to Byzantium]] ([[User talk:Sailing to Byzantium|talk]]) 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)