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

Revision as of 18:01, 9 October 2013

Revision as of 19:21, 9 October 2013

Line 11:

::: Well no it doesn't. I'm sorry you don't understand that basic premise. The article can be about a subject that is notable but not explain it. We could delete it or we could improve it. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 17:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

:::: I understand perfectly that poor articles on notable subjects should be kept. I also understand that people who nominate articles without doing even a cursory check for sources are, quite rightly, given a hard time here (but let me say it again, I did do such a check). However nobody ''has'' to do any checking. Nobody can be ''made'' to rewrite articles. The George Washington example is not a real case. If it existed it would take 10 seconds to find sourcces and 30 seconds to write something notable in the article. It would be perverse to AfD an article that could be fixed in under a minute by anybody. But what about an editor that has written reams of promotional junk about a new variety of yoga? It ''may'' conceivably be notable (but probably not), but if no one takes on a cleanup it is better to delete and give a new editor a clean sheet than to keep an article that is essentially just an advert. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 18:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

::::: [[:WP:DEL-REASON]] items 7 & 8 are the criteria to use here. The fact that the article does not itself list these sources is not a reason. And your nomination stated that there is "No indication of notability". Maybe I'm assuming that you mean that there is no indication in the article, so I'm sorry if I'm reading into that statement. Perhaps "No evidence of notability" would be more clear, or even, "I could not find anything to support that this subject is notable by performing searches. The article certainly doesn't provide any support for notability." I think we are discussing the same issue now. [[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' - No coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 16:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Qwertyus|Q<small>VVERTYVS</small>]] <small>([[User talk:Qwertyus|hm?]])</small> 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)