- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Human code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails to meet WP:V and WP:N. The article has two references. The first is a 1993 book by Steve McConnell titled Code Complete, published by Microsoft Press; and the second is a 2000 paper by Ilkka Tuomi titled "Internet, Innovation, and Open Source: Actors in the Network". Since the article does not provide enough bibliographic information for the second reference, it is assumed that the paper is what the article is referring to.
Searching the book (using Google Books) and the paper (using a cached HTML version from Google) for instances of "human code" and "human-readable code" (what the topic is alternatively known as, according the article), returns no results. These two references are therefore not able to verify that the topic exists, prove that the content is not original research and/or improper synthesis, and that the topic is notable. Additionally, the book is about how to program, and the paper is about the development of Linux from a social perspective. It is not obvious how these references are relevant.
Searching Google Books and Google Scholar for human code and human-readable code returns no relevant results in the first 30 or 40 results. Searching for any of the previous terms in combination with any of the following terms also returns no relevant results: computing, computer, and computer science. These terms were chosen because it can be expected that coverage in reliable sources contains these terms. Rilak (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Little secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nomination; also, appears to be a neologism. Dialectric (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.