Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Declarative Language: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Dating comment by Nitrode - "Reply" |
Psychonaut (talk | contribs) We don't maintain articles which can't be sourced. |
||
Line 8:
As I mentioned on the other Talk page (I really don't understand how these weird "discussion" pages on Wikipedia are supposed to work), SDL can hardly be considered non-notable considering that it's used by such high-profile companies/projects as Oracle, Bank of America, JTest Framework, and Swing. Remember that buzz (and especially searching exclusively in "Scholar" circles for buzz) is not the same thing as notability. [[User:Nitrode|Nitrode]] ([[User talk:Nitrode|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 18:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:We don't keep articles on software packages on the basis of their buzz and popularity, nor on whether or not large companies use them; all that matters is establishing [[WP:N|notability]], as we define it, through evidence of extensive coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If you are aware of such sources for this software, please list them here or add them to the article. We don't maintain articles which can't be sourced in this manner. [[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
| |||