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

Revision as of 17:28, 17 November 2013

Revision as of 20:59, 17 November 2013

Line 13:

*'''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)

:: Ok, I request the article be ''[[WP:Userfy|userfied]]'' where i can work on it later and add more content and resources. [[User:Msfclipper|Msfclipper]] ([[User talk:Msfclipper|talk]]) 17:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)