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

Revision as of 22:02, 12 July 2011

Revision as of 23:46, 12 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)

**So what you are saying is, if the company pays PR Web $300 to have their release appear in other magazines with some journalist's name stuck on them, it's suddenly reputable. [[User:Drquim|Drquim]] ([[User talk:Drquim|talk]]) 22:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

:::No. Articles that are clearly just paid placements or reprints of a company's press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. See [[WP:CORPDEPTH]]. To get useful coverage, most small companies will follow simpler guerrilla marketing strategies, e.g., sending free copies to journalists and then following up to see if they can get them interested in writing something. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 23:46, 12 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)

** I have already stated that I have nothing to do with the company. I just heard about the language and decided to create an article. How that would associate me with the company is beyond me. What proof did you have to offer that I'm somehow a member of the company? [[User:Drquim|Drquim]] ([[User talk:Drquim|talk]]) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

:::No one really cares whether you're associated with the company or not. But we do assume you care about your article. So we're trying to explain why the lack of sources is a problem right now and how you might move the article to user space, e.g., to [[User:Drquim/G (programming language)]], and then continue working to find sources. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 20:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)