Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernova (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Msfclipper (talk | contribs) |
delete |
||
Line 11:
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|(talk)]]</sup> 13:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software|list of Software-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|(talk)]]</sup> 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)</small>
*'''Delete.''' Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by [[WP:GNG]]. Sources offered are all [[WP:Primary]] (meaning, sources written by the author) or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turns up nothing useful. It's possible this is simply a case of [[WP:Too soon]] and that new, more helpful sources could appear tomorrow. But, frankly, I doubt it. It's very difficult to imagine this going anywhere. I don't know who would use it to do what. [[WP:COI]] is not a reason to delete but is a reason to question [[User:Msfclipper|Msfclipper]]'s impartiality in claiming this language is known for anything or even that it's known at all. If, as I expect, the consensus is to delete, [[User:Msfclipper|Msfclipper]] should request the article be ''[[WP:Userfy|userfied]]'' if he'd like to continue working on it as he looks for more suitable sources. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
| |||