Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)

MKR (programming language)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language)
• Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)

MKR (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I can't find any non-trivial references to this software other than those created by the editor of the article. Killerofcruft (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(User:Killerofcruft changed his username during this process, and contributes below as User:Allemandtando--Abd (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep shows clear notability. Al Tally ^talk 12:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain how it has notability - I cannot find anything but trival mentions in lists and other such material. What reliable sources have commented on this? in what context. Please be specific in your response - naming the publications. --Killerofcruft (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact it exists makes it notable. The sources may be lacking, but give the article a chance. Al Tally ^talk 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. I should point out that Wikipedia doesn't make note of my mobile phone, my desk calendar, or the bag of MUJI dried vegetable snacks, and the fact that they exist doesn't mean they're getting articles, either. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(jaw drops) Huh? Al, step away from the bong. Since when have you become such a radical inclusionist? That last statement is so far from actual policies and previous precedents to be unbelievable. It also doesn't square with your history on Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article shows a lot of potential. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In what sense? potential for what? considering there are no reliable sources on the matter. Can you provide reliable sources? What policy based reason can you give? --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are a couple of references to the article I found:

• A law resource site
• Information on the extension *.MKR
• It has over Nine thousand downloads
• On a list of downloadable programming languages

I'll do a more thorough search on this later. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are all directory listing - none of which are considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. If this programming language is notable - where is the real world usage, where are the mentions in the peer reviewed journals, where the mentions in books by notable writers etc? Where is well.. anything of that nature? directory listings are not going to cut it. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The first source provided above isn't merely a "directory listing." It is on its face a review of each resource, by what may be a notable expert. I don't have time to track all this down yet, but that source appears to be marginally useful. Here is what it says about MKR:

McCullough Knowledge Explorer and the MKR Language [1]. McCullough Knowledge Explorer (MKE) is an interactive tool for organizing knowledge. It helps the user to record, change and search knowledge, and provides extensive error checking to ensure the internal consistency of the knowledge. Interaction with MKE uses the MKR language. MKR is a very-high-level knowledge representation language with simple English-like statements, questions and commands, plus UNIX-shell-like variables, methods and control structures.

Now, where did that language come from? Google finds seven hits for the exact language. Who copied from whom? It's going to take time to track this stuff down. That is, this may not be useful. And at this point I don't know how we could tell without putting more time into it. I'm working now with the article to try to make clear what sources there are; assistance is appreciated. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Whoa.. if sources are in question, how did this get through the first AFD? I would suspect, having been around for 10 years and being in a version 7, that this language has gotten attention from more than just the author. But our suspicions aren't enough- sources are required. I see sources, but how many of them mention this language? I hope this can be kept, but it's unclear to me whether the sources we have now are enough. Friday (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

currently, the strongest source is some lecture notes. If you look at the rest, they are about elements of the field that the design draws upon not the language itself. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete - the sources aren't impressing me. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete In dire need of some reliable sources. None so far forthcoming. ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article already survived AfD just four days ago. Consensus doesn't change that quickly. TotientDragooned (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the AFD - it was done on the basis of COI not sourcing. My argument here is not the one presented there - as I was uninvolved. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm willing to give this a go for now, but if I look at it in a few months time and it is still no clearer I'll probably be in favor of deletion. The references are obliquely described and seem obscure. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that it boils down to "somebody has mentioned this language in a lecture on the vizualization of computational processes." Moreover the examples as the article stands don't suggest anything revolutionary. There's a bit of formal logic there, perhaps a bit of reflection, and with an imperative rather than declarative flavor. But on the face of it, nothing you couldn't hack up in a few minutes using lisp. That isn't to say that the language may not at some point attract broader attention. However that it apparently hasn't done so in eleven years is strongly suggestive. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Tend to agree with Anticipation on this one. Agree that it needs some RS, but I'm not sure that any effort to dig any up has actually been undergone by third parties. If it was still in its present state in 3 months I'd probably vote delete. (If consensus develops around Arthur's userfy below, I'd support that, too.) Orderinchaos 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete/Userfy. There are no sources other than the developers' mailing list. All other sources appear to refer to the field, rather than the specific "language". Suggest that the developer restore than article if it gets some discussion in WP:RS. As for the previous AfD, it found that COI is not a reason to delete. Absence of sources is, and the matter was not brought up then. In favor of deletion, rather than waiting for sourcing, as a number of redirects have been created by the developer, which would probably be worthy of deletion even if the article were kept. WP:COI, although not a reason to delete, is a reason to delete something more quickly than if a neutral party though it relevent in the absence of sourcing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per result of previous AfD, on principle, because 4 days is much to soon for a second nomination, and the argument that this nomination is on a different "basis" from the first one is simply wiki-lawyering. Any disagreement with the outcome of the first nomination should have been addressed through the deletion review process, not by an immediate re-nomination. This looks like a vendetta to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the other comments. Previous AFD was flawed, as it ignored notability. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The proper procedure to initiate a review of the previous AfD is to go through the deletion review process. This whole re-nomination is a disruptive abuse of process. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would I have a vendetta against a) an article I never edited before today and b) an AFD I was never involved in. I'd ask you to withdraw those bad faith remarks or I'll ask for action. --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment (Re-instating my comment, which was removed by Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The. This is not a personal attack and is relevant to this AfD discussion) Killerofcruft's familiarity with Wikipedia procedures and terminology suggests that he is an experienced Wikipedia editor using a recently created alternative account. Although there are some legitimate reasons for using an alternative account, there are also procedures that should be followed to ensure openness and transparency. In view of Killerofcruft's assertions that he was not involved in the previous AfD, I invite him to clarify whether he has previously edited under another account name or names. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete There really are no reliable sources for this. Almost everything is material self-published by the creator of the article. It fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, and is mostly WP:OR. The author reached hard for sources, even at one point citing a mailing list on which it was mentioned a few times; McCulloch was trying to argue that it had some benefit to the XML/RDF community, and got a few responses. (Although the article doesn't link to its sources, you can, in fact, find most of them on the web.) The language got short entries on long, comprehensive lists of AI tools. I've been looking for more sources; I tried Google and Google Scholar, and the best I could find was a paper by McCulloch (editor who created the article) rejected by a regional AI conference in Florida. It's not even getting blog references. This isn't new work; it's been around for years. As for the lecture notes cited, they're online.[2] The reference to mKE is in a lecture about debugging tools for the Unicon language, and mKE is "the Largest Publically Available Unicon Program (50K lines)", and it's mentioned as something to practice debugging upon. The entire reference is three lines. That's it. --John Nagle (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy for now. The editor is new to this, and is acting in good faith, so just nuking it is a bit harsh. Inclined to agree that it's not articlespace material at this point though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or Userfy. No demonstrated notability. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Gandalf61. There are very good reasons for avoiding repeated nomination in a short period of time: it diverts editors from the task of improving articles. Many editors will avoid working on an article while it's under immediate threat of AfD because the work can disappear in a flash. I also see that the article, on its face, is adequately sourced, but this is not based on that conclusion and I'd really want to research it more deeply. Process alone here suggests Keep (for now), and Killerofcruft edit warred to prevent speedy closure of this AfD on that basis. A nomination in a month wouldn't have this problem. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom., evidently no notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I can shed some light on why mKR is not mentioned. My interactions are mostly with the W3C crowd, where mKR has "competition" from other languages which were known at W3C before mKR was known. In my opinion, mKR has been largely ignored at W3C [some char. glitch here] due to a combination of "Not Invented Here" and "Why should I change?" and "who is this upstart who thinks he is better than us" ... I think you get the idea. Unfortunately, I think I personally contributed to people shunning me & mKR because I was too outspoken. I readily declared that mKR was better than the languages they were using (esp. their sacred RDF and OWL) and they didn't like to hear that. So they first shuttled me off to a new email group so I wouldn't talk about mKR any more. And they just hoped I would go away & they wouldn't have to hear from me again. That hasn't really worked -- in the sense that mKR has been too successful in interfacing with Stanford TAP knowledge base, OpenCyc knowledge base, Amazon, Google. W3C is not accomplishing that with any of their languages. I am still confident that mKR is superior to all of the W3C languages, but that's not enough to overcome the inertia and the NIH attitudes at W3C. Excuse me for being so long-winded. But here we are with the facts of life -- merit by itself does not bring citations from reliable sources. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so we are clear here - as inventor of the language and main author of the article - you are saying that as far as you are aware there are no reliable sources for this article? --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify- whether this article is kept is not meant to have anything to do with how useful a language this is, or how innovative it is, or anything like that. As a neutral encyclopedia, we refrain from passing judgement on such issues. We go on whether or not it's gotten significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Exactly how much coverage is "enough" is a bit of a judgement call. The assertion that "it exists, and therefore is notable" is a fringe position, not remotely in line with the goals or established practices of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. In effect, the creator's own comments explain why the article does not belong in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a procedural keep as the spirit of process was violated in renominating four days after the close of first. The 1st AfD had it's chance at the article. If sourcing is so important as a rationale to delete, it should have been included before. Repeated nominations of an article are disruptive, and the existence of an article that may be, or may not be, sufficiently notable is infinitely less destructive to WP that violating process for some supposed immediate gain. Also, it's inappropriate to delete articles that can be improved, per WP:DEL. — Becksguy (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How can we improve an article for which sources don't exist - that's the bit I don't understand about this theme of "well it can be improved". How can we improve an article if the basic building blocks of a wikipedia article don't exist? --Killerofcruft (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't know that they don't exist. There are some sources already, and AfD is not a good place to determine their reliability, this is far better worked out through ordinary editorial process, which gives people time. The author of the article may well not be aware of all the sources. I'm perhaps the world's foremost expert on Delegable proxy and the sources I presented in the AfD for that article were not considered sufficient; however, shortly after the close, an article published in a peer-reviewed journal on the concept came to my attention; but, guess what: I'm COI, so I'm not bringing that article back (It's currently a redirect.) Essentially, none of us know everything, which is one reason this is a community project. And renominating for AfD immediately upon a closing without Delete, and especially when that AfD suggested improving the article, is disruptive to the community. I've seen this "there are no sources" argument many times. Sometimes it is true, but I'll note one problem with the argument: it cannot possibly be based on knowledge, unless the one arguing is omniscient. What could be legitimately argued is that not enough have yet been found. It's a process, and it takes time. I do not know if sufficient RS can be found. It could take me a couple of hours to find out, and even then I could miss stuff. I'll say this, though: the article does no harm sitting there for another month. And if it is deleted now, we won't know if additional source could have been found. It tends to discourage those who might work on it, that the article doesn't exist.--Abd (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment From my understanding of the discussion of mKR, it is a keep on the basis of common sense and occasional exception. Wikipedia:Notability says

This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Rhmccullough (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On what basis should an exception be made? --Allemandtando (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not in this case. The procedural arguments don't hold water, and there was no consensus for keeping it, just not enough for deleting it. The original AFD was flawed, and a grand total of TWO said "Keep". It was teetering on deletion anyway. The lack of any proof of notability puts it over the edge. It should go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to put words into other people's mouths. I can only say that I got the feeling that mKR was considered potentially of interest and of value to Wikipedia users. Rhmccullough (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the two keepers talked to me about it afterward. I believe his thinking was that it would eventually be a keep, and he was content to just make sure that it was not deleted at that time. Maybe you want to talk to him? Rhmccullough (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My memory is slowly returning to me. The other keeper was a Wiktionary editor. He voted against mKR for Wiktionary because of stricter rules on citations (the name of mKR has changed several times). But he voted for keep for Wikipedia. Rhmccullough (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my last bit of speculation, based on what I can remember. I don't think the words common sense or occasional exception were ever used in the discussion. I just had the feeling that's what the keepers were thinking. I think the two deleters were focused on the letter of law, and never considered the possibility of an exception. Rhmccullough (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• strong delete where are the reliable sources? There are none [3] and none of the people voting keep have been able to mention any. So I'm intrigued as to why there's any desire to keep this article. Is it something created by a wikipedian?:) Please explain. Sticky Parkin 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving for a formal early close now because I think the arguments are veering towards provisional keep (pending improvement) and it has been brought to my notice that this deletion discussion is the second one in just a few days. There are special reasons why the discussions have been separated.

I think it would be a very unusual decision to delete the article on the basis of this discussion (see Wikipedia:Snowball clause); on the other hand I think the article should be deleted if not improved in the next few months.

I do not doubt the good faith of all participants. There are severe problems with this article, but it may be salvageable and so I think it's not appropriate to continue this second nomination immediately. We should wait until enough time has passed for the many editors who have asked this article to be kept to make necessary improvements in sourcing, which have already been identified. If there are no objections, we can close this discussion and formally defer the decision for a few months.

By all means, if there is anyone who thinks that this article is so opposed to fundamental Wikipedia policies that it must be deleted immediately, let him object to this proposal and we'll let the discussion run to its full length. Or we can let those who want to improve this article do what they are sure can be done, and then we can judge the result of their good faith efforts in the light of all Wikipedia policies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NB: see my later comments. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No objection to that - just a query - which have already been identified. - what sourcing has been identified. Even the author and inventor doesn't think that sources exist - so what sources are you talking about? --Allemandtando (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I often seem to speak a private language. I mean "improvements (to problems) in sourcing, which (the problems and potential improvements) have already been identified". --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On that basis - I withdraw the nomination - but I'll be honest, I don't expect to see any sources appear (I looked for hours in both public and private databases) and if the article remains in this state would intend to renominate in eight weeks - which to me seems a reasonable time period to find at least some RS. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The last AFD was closed foolishly. I don't see a reason to repeat the same mistake. This one is bringing up the actual issues. Friday (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If there are no WP:RS (which there aren't) the article can't be saved. We shouldn't wait for sources to appear in the article, if there are none in the rest of the world. They can't be magicked into existence and I question why people desire to keep this- obviously some people must be fans of whatever-it-is. Sticky Parkin 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I am a computer expert, I have no interest in keeping this article alive because of that. My concern, and apparently the concern of several others, is about process. You can't possibly have a collaborative project the massive size of Wikipedia without agreeing on process and then following it, in spirit as well as letter. So no, it's not because I'm a fan, nor do I think others are either. And multiple nominations, especially one following only four days after the first closed is a disruption. That's my concern, and I believe the concern of others here. We have more AfDs per day than anyone can reasonably fully read, never mind thoughtfully research, apply critical thinking skills to, debate, and !vote on. — Becksguy (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is a case of "fuck process", actually. Process is about ignoring the situation and pointing to precedent. Process plays no part in any Wikipedia policy. Why use it in favor of, or in opposition to, deletion of an article? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, process is how we behave in situations, separate from "content." I.e., edit-warring is process. Content is not normally part of 3RR. The admin who tried to close this was faced with an edit-warring user. If he'd have said "fuck process," he'd simply have reverted. If the reversion had continued, he'd have been saying "fuck process" if he switched accounts and pressed the block button. Instead, that admin went, properly, to AN/I, refraining -- for process reasons, from edit warring himself. Here, with this AfD, we see why rapid renom is a bad idea, why process requires discussion with a closer, first, then going to DRV. Not edit warring on starting up another AfD immediately. Absolutely, Rule Number One is "Fuck Process." Well, not exactly! Process is necessary, Rule Number One suggests that there can be higher purposes, that process precedent isn't always the best guide. So what was the reason for ignoring process here? What ongoing damage existed that required immediate action? I see two: edit warring was allowed to continue because people ignored process and instead started, out of process, debating, once again, notability, and secondly, a lot of editor time has been wasted doing this. There are reasons for long-established process. Ignore them, and usually it damages the project. If this article is really so non-notable that there is simply no proper debate, then prove it. Put a speedy tag on it. See where that goes! It's clear: still, the best thing to do is close this AfD before even more time is wasted and editors start tearing each other up. Let it open again in two months, as agreed by the nominator, or less, in fact. A month ought to be enough. I predict it will be much easier then to decide. For one thing, we won't have all the Keep votes that are process-based. They'll be real, if there are any then. --Abd (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Allemandtando's decision to withdraw at this time. Withdrawing the nomination pending the addition of sourcing seems like a reasonable compromise. — Becksguy (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"We shouldn't be waiting for sources to appear in the article" is something that I would dearly like to apply to articles about or involving statments about living people (sadly it doesn't appear to be working [4]). I think it can be legitimately relaxed for articles that don't stand to ruin a person's reputation. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Nice to be able to agree with Allemandtando. Absolutely, if the article doesn't improve (or at least be better defended, I haven't reviewed the existing sources in sufficient detail to be certain about this), it's likely that there will be another AfD after a decent pause. The problem here was the precipitous renomination, which is indeed a "process" question. While process isn't everything, there are reasons we avoid rapid renom absent some kind of emergency. Give it some time.--Abd (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's had 10 years or better. If there aren't sources by now, it's extremely foolish to assume they'll magically appear Real Soon Now. Friday (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Friday know something I don't? Wouldn't be the first time someone does! This article was created on 14 June, and was first AfD'd on 15 June, with this second AfD being filed on 24 June. That's 10 days in which to find RS, not ten years, though I suppose it's easy to confuse the two.--Abd (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The language has been around more than 10 years. The author of the article and the language is in a good position to know what sources exist. He's told us a bit about his work. He's told us where he's presented his work, and he's told us reasons why it hasn't gotten more attention. He's been using the best sources he has. If he hasn't already turned up more significant coverage in these many years, it's doubtful someone else will in the immediate future. Friday (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable objection. Let's run the full discussion of five days or whatever. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I fear it's already been hopelessly derailed, but, sure, more time can't particularly hurt. Friday (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Kill it now, or kill it in a couple of weeks, either way it's the same result. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not seeing any actual reliable sources attesting to more than existence -- quite the opposite, really. And a reality check for User:TotientDragooned, User:Gandalf61, User:Abd, and User:Becksguy: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so !voting "keep" on the basis of a technicality -- not even a real technicality, come to think of it -- instead of the actual merits is just perverse. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Response to Calton - Wikipedia is not an anarchy either, and an editor who ignores established procedures (despite obviously being aware of them) needs to explain very clearly how they think are improving the project by doing so. The originator of this AfD has (a) re-nominated an article for a second AfD within an extraordinarily short space of time; (b) completely ignored the established deletion review process; (c) admitted (on my talk page) that they have previously edited Wikipedia under another account name, but not identified that account name. For me, that makes this whole re-nomination invalid and pointy. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that's "invalid and pointy" is your opposing vote on that basis. As for his account name, he said somewhere his old account was a real-name account; he is under absolutely no obligation to disclose it; and whether or not he chooses to disclose it has absolutely no effect on the validity of his edits. And as for his "ignoring policy", he said he hadn't actually been aware of the previous AfD when nominating, so no, he did not ignore policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Response to Fut.Perf. - the nominator definitely knew about the previous nomination when he re-nominated - look at the very first version of this page which he created with "2nd nomination" in the title and a link to the previous AfD. I don't think he has ever said he was not aware of the previous AfD when he re-nominated (do you have a diff ?). But he has said several times that he was not involved in the previous AfD, a claim which cannot be easily verified given his lack of openness about his previous account(s). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the first nomination at all - I came to the article from AN/I where it was mentioned. As for the fact that it was created with "2nd Nomination" in the title and a link to the first AFD - that's pretty simple. I use twinkle which automates the AFD process - you get a pop-up box, you select the category and provide your reason - all of the page creation is automatic with no user action required. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user withdrew the nomination, but let's not withdraw history; this comment is not really about him, but about a rather rosy interpretation of what happened by FPaS. Killerofcruft did ignore policy. The user edit warred with an administrator on keeping this AfD open; at that point, he was aware of the prior AfD, whether or not he wasn't before. The biggest problem here is that AN/I, instead of looking at the process issue (edit warring) got distracted by the question of notability, I've been seeing this mission creep there for a while. Edit warring isn't acceptable, even if the editor is "right." And the editor wasn't right. Immediate renomination is destructive, look at the time wasted here. Due to the opportunity missed in AN/I, and due to the attention focused on this AfD by the fuss there, this AfD remained open long enough to attract enough !votes that a weight exists for keeping it open. If a month goes by and it hasn't been sourced properly, it's not likely to attract nearly as much fuss as this improper AfD. I have no idea how I'd !vote in a month's time. Now, was the user originally aware of the prior AfD? Possibly not. If he says not, we have to assume not. He says that he saw an AN/I discussion on the article, where the actual newbie author was complaining about his article being hacked up. I've looked at that discussion, and I saw no mention of the just-closed AfD there. On the other hand, this is an experienced user, and, as such, not likely to AfD without a review of the article history, which was very short. At the very least, this AfD was reckless. I see now that Twinkle was used. Yes. Reckless. Check before using Twinkle.--Abd (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason this has resulted in disruption is because you have been making an irrational fuss over it. Al tally was wrong in closing it in the first place (after voting keep, he was no longer an uninvolved admin, and his totally outlandish fringe understanding of notability expressed above which his keep vote was based on places his closure far outside normal policy.) If this AfD had been judged on its merits, as it should, it would now be smoothly heading towards a snowball delete, exactly as it should. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Singular "you" or plural, i.e., referring to the *many* editors who've made the same point, raised the same "irrational fuss?" Al tally did !Vote keep and then close, an error. A technical point. Essentially, his error was voting, because he obviously voted first, then reconsidered and closed, a more correct decision. He was not involved before that. In other words, here FPaS is claiming that process should be ignored, then he stands on it, the letter of the policy, not the purpose of it. If one looks at the actual comments, there are Keep !votes that state policy reasons, and that don't make a content judgment. It's not known how these would vote in a proper AfD; but there are clearly other Keep votes, here and in the original AfD, that are actually notability based Keep, that have nothing to do with the process problems. I'm quite concerned about AfD process, because it's a setup for editor dissension. Instead of the product being something fluid, an article state, which is always subject to change, it has, merge excepted, a black-and-white outcome with a fixed deadline, so editors can get a little desperate. When there is likelihood of contentious debate, and such debate is common with AfDs, process becomes very important. It would seem that FPaS is arguing that edit warring is okay if you are right. Let me think about that, it could be useful. If I end up before ArbComm, FPaS, will you defend me? After all, if I honestly think I'm right.... --Abd (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Response to Fut.Perf.: if you or the nominator or anyone else had concerns about the closing of the original AfD, they should taken those concerns to deletion review. Immediate re-nomination and the subsequent edit warring was clearly disruptive and pointy. If the nominator's main goal was to improve Wikipedia, they would not have acted in this disruptive and attention-seeking manner. And the nominator's argument that "I didn't see the previous nomination because I used Twinkle" is a piece of special pleading that is just as muddle-headed as his view that the "right to vanish" protection somehow still applies to him even after he obviously not vanished. The best way to go forward from this SNAFU is to close this AfD as "no consensus" and re-list in 2 or 3 months - after all is said and done, there is no fire. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't "disruption", this is -- wait for it -- procedure. All it lacks is the purely arbitrary and artificial procedural hoops -- not even actual, proscribed hoops -- you want people to jump through, well, why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Response to Calton: A second AfD within four days, with edit warring and unfounded accusations of personal attacks, and without paying any heed to the deletion review process that exists to handle such situations - yes, I would say that is close to anarchy. As you correctly say, if the nominator really believed he had a good argument for overturning the original AfD, he could have achieved his aims much more simply and directly by withdrawing his reckless re-nomination and initiating a deletion review. And the "hoops" exist to protect the innocent and ensure that everything is done in an open, transparent and consensual way - it is the difference between due process of law and a vigilante mob. But if you dislike Wikipedia's "hoops" so much, you can find plenty of other "hoop-free" places elsewhere on the internet. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The nominator has previously exercised his right to vanish due to privacy concerns over his old username. This is perfectly fine, and he should be commended for coming back, I think (even if I don't agree with a few of his deletion nominations :-P). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an anarchy either, and an editor who ignores established procedures Really? a second AFD is "anarchy"? By that standard, it's a good thing that no one speedy-deleted it, as that no doubt would have brought about the downfall of civilization. Oh, and actual "established procedures" would have had this thing nuked already and this second AFD unnecessary. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perverse keep. Re-nominations within four days are annoying and disruptive, and the only way of discouraging the practice is to let them fail, even if on "perverse" procedural grounds. --Itub (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you forgot the actual goal of AFD. Hint: it's not how many hoops you can make people jump through, it's the end result. So, in fact, your !vote is entirely accurately named. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• On the talk page, User:Nagle recently pointed out to User:Rhmccullough that there was a problem with the sourcing in the article. As this was only a few days ago at the time of writing, I would be in favour of giving a while to see if User:Rhmccullough can remember anywhere else where there may be sources, or for anybody else to find any (the fact that the language apparently used to be called just "KR" might be throwing us off; two-letterisms are a bit harder to get proper search results on). If consensus to keep the article for this purpose is not found, I would say to let somebody keep it in userspace for the same purpose. (While noting that userspace is not an "article graveyard", of course.) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I suppose the Icon Newsletter article is a bit tenuous since it was written by the creator, although at least the editor thought it was worth inclusion. I also turned up a blog post, although again we'd like something bigger. I've explained our sourcing rules to User:Rhmccullough‎ as I think he didn't quite understand the concern, maybe he can turn up something better. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps WP:DRV would have been the appropriate venue, rather than a new nomination. However, a new AfD nomination giving a reason not discussed in the previous AfDs is never improper, even if the result had been keep, and it had closed yesterday. (The question of whether the lack of sources was discussed in the previous AfD is open. I saw a reference there, but it seems to have been added after the AfD closed.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing was discussed in the original AfD, before closing. Here's a link to the close:[5] From the AfD:

• The information is clearly verifiable, and the article is well cited, so I see no reason to delete. Conrad.Irwin (on wikt) 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sources are all debatable, none seem notable. Rehevkor ✉ 00:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• ...However, lack of notability is a deletion criteria and I can not find reliable sourcing on this software.... ju66l3r (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, other Delete arguments that the topic was not "notable" imply a source problem. When adequate RS exists, it's notable, almost certainly. So the claim that sourcing wasn't brought up in the first AfD is just more confusion, like a lot of what happened here. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This sourcing problem was ignored, simple as that, your attempts to sow confusion notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to sow confusion? AGF, Calton. I guarantee I'm not attempting to sow confusion. I don't have *anything* invested in this article, I'm now trying to help the original author, and I have no idea if I'll be successful, and others seem to be helping too. That is how Wikipedia works, when it works. Calton just went through this AfD, arguing with many users. What's making this worth that effort. Just wondering! Sourcing was mentioned and argued, clearly, by more than one user. To redefine this as "ignored" is fantasy. Certainly it can be argued that not enough attention was paid to the issue, except that the closer did say that the article should be "cleaned up." That would include source cleanup. But "ignored"? My kids have a language they use called "sheep language," and in it everything means the opposite of the normal meaning. Sheep language? By this standard nearly every AfD could be renom'd immediately, I've often seen something wrong, I've seen RS ignored, for example. Immediate renom is bad process. Bad process leads to editors fighting when we could be working on the project. Absent some kind of emergency, perhaps with a BLP, immediate renom has no excuse, period. DRV is for that; DRV could have reopened the old AfD, for example, I've seen that kind of outcome. Or explicitly permitted a new one, immediately. --Abd (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Every minute the defenders of this article are spending defending it, could be better spent looking for information that the subject is actually notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. How about you? (I've looked, for some time; as noted above, the language was renamed, it's not necessarily easy to find sources, sometimes. Sometimes they aren't searchable for various reasons. Google doesn't necessarily hand them to us on a silver platter. The search may fail, and the article may then fall. I'm trying to help the author and others organize the sources, so we can see in one place what exists, including marginal sources. If it does come back for AfD, I think the decision will be easier and less contentious. At least I can hope!) --Abd (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep (ec) for now; it's been ten days since the article was created, if I understand correctly, by someone who (while of necessity very knowledgeable about the topic) has little understanding of Wikipedia article creation and sourcing. It is horrible to have to change to writing with an "outside" viewpoint, and "encyclopedic" is an extreme of "outside"; the author is very used to writing "inside". He's going to have a hard time finding sources, and constantly be complained about for OR, but give him half a chance. In a couple of months, if it's not turned around, perhaps it should go. htom (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy - As it stands, the article does not have any independent reliable sources to show notability of this subject. Hoping it will eventually have some is speculation. I have no objection to the article being moved to user space until it is improved, but it does not have a place in mainspace right now. The technicality re: the timing of this AfD is besides the point. The reason we normally avoid re-nominating so quick is to prevent railroading when someone doesn't get the results they wanted. I'm willing to WP:AGF on the nom when he states he didn't know of the first AfD, and looking at that AfD it was a mess. If this AfD does not result in deleting or userfying, then I'd support waiting at least a month or two before any new AfD takes place, as this has generated a much more thorough discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep sourcing for this sort of material tends to be informal. The renomination in any case is hopelessly abusive. To nom on one ground, lose, and argue immediately for another grounds is not rational--when an article is proposed for deletion, all the factors for deleting it should be stated. Why would someone want to do anything else--one wants to make the strongest deletion case possible. To string them out one at a time is in my view looks more like an attempt to have a second round, in the hope that the random variation in who comes here will have a different result. DGG (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not the fault of the second nominator that the first nominator did an inadequate job. I could just as easily argue that the "no consensus" decision made no sense. The author of the article barely skated by even with only the COI issue being discussed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

comment I have no fear that you'll be back with an AfD in six weeks, two months, or whenever you think it will be successful. htom (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate this language is "notable", then you need not fear or even think about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per the article's sources, which assert notability, and because it exists. giggy _(:O) 01:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, which sources? Of all the sources used in the article, only one even mentions the subject, and no, that one does not assert notability for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sources which do assert notability have been removed. The article is in flux. DGG was correct, "sourcing for this sort of material tends to be informal." We may need to rely upon a number of marginal sources rather than a single clearly reliable source. At this point, I'm not placing or taking any bets that the article will be adequately sourced by the time we are done. All I can say is that it is possible, clearly possible based on what I've seen. There may remain some controversy over notability, and that is what AfD and DRV (and ArbComm, should it come to that, which I doubt) are for. Absolutely, if you only look at today's article, it's not there. But there has been source, previously, in the article that is at least marginal. At this point, such source is actively being removed by deletionist editors, and, so far, each removal has at least some legitimate justification, but not necessarily a conclusive one. So I wouldn't suggest making a final decision based on the state of the article today. Rather, notice, the nominator withdrew the nomination and is active editing the article. Others are active, and there is work going on that takes time to collect usable source. This AfD has done one piece of good, in spite of its impropriety. The author now realizes, I'm sure, the precariousness of the article, and others are also helping to save it. I wouldn't be helping if I didn't think there was a reasonable chance of success, but by no means, so far, is success a certainty.--Abd (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That article cannot be saved - the sources just don't exist - I looked, I had one of my researcher looks. The author of the article and inventor of the language doesn't believe that the sources exist. Regardless of the "procedural" arguments here - this is very very straightforward, we cannot produce an article for a subject that reliable sources do not exist - that's as fundamental as it gets here. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The factual statement made by Allemandtando is true, sort of. We cannot keep an article for which reliable sources do not exist. However, the standard by which sources are judged to be sufficiently reliable is not, in fact, the guidelines, which are merely helpful suggestions indicating what the community is, exceptions aside, likely to judge acceptable or not. Sources which clearly meet the guidelines can be used, exceptions would be rare. However, this particular field is one where there is a great deal that is common knowledge among those involved with the field, which is never mentioned in our ordinary "reliable sources." It's hard even to imagine a newspaper article about mKR, unless some particular application appears and makes a splash. Which, in fact, may have happened already without any knowledge on the part of the language's creator, and that is why his apparent unawareness of sources is not conclusive. However, right now, sources which are commonly deemed acceptable in other articles on programming languages are being excluded with this article, based on rigid applications of WP:RS guidelines, which is actually an abuse of those guidelines. They are by definition not rigid. As one example, material from the official mKR web site is being systematically and ipso facto excluded as "self published," while WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources about themselves would seem to, almost explicitly, allow it. I'm not edit warring over this, because I don't edit war, or even approach it unless the matter is crystal clear to me; however, at some point, some reference to the official programming language web site may be coming back into the article, and, I trust, if so, that it will be through community consensus. Which is the actual standard, no matter how much some editors may bite their fingers over it. Abd (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2008

The problem is that the link violates several of the criteria--(1), (4), and (7) in particular, and possibly (3) and (5) as well. With all due respect to rhm, this appears to be about an interesting but ultimately non-notable programming language. Horologium (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference to WP:SELFPUB was about material being removed that was from the mKR web site, about the program, with the claim that it was unusable purely because it was self-published. The guideline has seven criteria, and it is entirely possible that there is material on that site which meets all seven criteria. It would seem that the claim of unusability is based on some preconception of how the site would be used as a source. Let's look at the criteria themselves.

• 1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;

This is an example of use, i.e., a self-published site might be used to establish notability for some other subject, under some situations. This would not apply to proposed usage of the official mKR site, it's an example of a guideline being worded in such a way that someone taking it as a rigid list could misapply it. This criterion might, in fact, allow usage of a different source, the lecture notes of a certain assistant professor known in the field. But that's not what I was discussing.

• 2. it is not contentious;

Check. (with regard to what would be used.)

• 3. it is not unduly self-serving;

Check. The mKR site would not be used to support "self-serving" claims; rather to support noncontroversial matters such as the design intention of the language, its history, etc. That there is material on the site which might be "self-serving," i.e., that might say, for example, "mKR is more intuitive than Resource Description Framework" or the like, which could be expected to come from an official site for a program, doesn't make it unusable for other purposes. Key is, "not contentious."

• 4. it does not involve claims about third parties;

Check. The mKR site would be used with regard to mKR and its design philosophy and history, not for information about other "parties." (Note that criterion 4 seems to contradict criterion 1. That's what we get by using the ordinary WP editorial process on guidelines; at least that's how it appears to me.)

• 5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

Check.

• 6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;

Check.

• 7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Check. (As I stated, if this was the sole basis for the article, it would not suffice. (This criterion refers to notability, really, not to what sources can be used for the article. Another bit of bad writing for the guideline.)

--Abd (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem is this - if the only sources are self-published and we keep on that basis, then we are de-facto saying that self-published sources are enough for an article. This means that, this afternoon, I can knock up an official site about my new application "app X" - get three of my friends who are academics (and I used to be an academic so this wouldn't be hard to do) to insert it into lecture notes or self-publish a review of my app X on their sites - and tomorrow, I can have an article - because by the arguments being made here - that's plenty good sourcing - which is nonsense. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Horologium (talk · contribs) writes: "However, this particular field is one where there is a great deal that is common knowledge among those involved with the field, which is never mentioned in our ordinary "reliable sources." Actually, no. If this was a notable language, there would be articles in ACM SIGPLAN Notices or in Data and Knowledge Engineering. There would be accepted conference papers. Maybe a doctoral thesis or two. If it was widely used, there would be books about it, articles in Dr. Dobbs or IEEE Computer, and probably an O'Reilly guide. There would be blogs and forums about it, a user commmunity, bug trackers, and FAQ sites. I'm not seeing any of this, and I've looked. This just isn't notable per WP:NOTE. --John Nagle (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't write what you had quoted; my comment got appended to an unsigned quote by another user (I believe it was Abd (talk · contribs)); I have reformatted my comment to more clearly differentiate it from the preceding statement, which was to what my comment was written in response. I agree with the assessment that the language is ultimately non-notable. Horologium (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be. I think that if the article is given its best shot, it is still possible that the community will decide it is not notable. I'm only trying to help it get its best shot. I have leads on sources. They might exist. Remember, this is an old language, apparently, earlier sources may be difficult to find. There is private email correspondence with at least one expert, with more being possible. Let's see where it leads. --Abd (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not an old language at all (10 years) - so I'm not sure why that is relevent or even claimed? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, who suffers? It's relevant because even ten years ago, some sources that either never were published on the web or were published but the sites are now gone, might not presently be findable. That doesn't make them unusable, it merely makes it harder to find them. This AfD is indeed wasting a lot of time, pointing out, once again, how a rapid renom is a Bad Idea. Simply allowing some time to lapse could make the next AfD either not happen (crackerjack sources are found, no claim that this is likely), or it happens and may be far less contentious (no process complication, and a definite set of sources, truly a "best shot," to discuss). I'm not predicting how that would come out, and, as I've written, I'm not placing or making any bets on it, except to say that if I thought it impossible, I wouldn't be wasting my time assisting McCullough, nor the time of the community in debating this here.--Abd (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What? what are you on about? that has nothing to do with my question or your assertation. You are claiming that the language being ten years old means that it is an "old language" - this is explictly your claim and is the basis for your special pleading about sources (that they are more difficult to find because of age). Fortan, Lisp, Cobalt are examples of languages that any objective observer would consider old (within the context of the field) - A language developed at the turn of the century is not old by any objective standard and special pleading based upon that factor should be rejected. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New section to aid in edits

Comment. I'm counting 11 Keep !votes and 9 Delete (including Userfy as Delete, which it effectively is, and I did not count the original author's Keep) plus the nominator. It's pretty unlikely this is going to close with a Delete consensus, though it's possible that an administrator could otherwise decide based on arguments. In which case, given what I've seen, it would probably go to WP:DRV, wasting even more time. I'm suggesting, folks, that we let this go for the moment. Those interested in helping improve the article, please do help. Those interested in seeing it disappear, save your ammunition until you know what you'll be shooting at. The final article, in a month's time or perhaps more (two or three months has been suggested by some), is unlikely to look much like the present one, and I expect it to be better sourced. Whether that will be adequate to satisfy the community, I can't predict at this time. My crystal ball is in the shop. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only describe the behavior of some contributors here as obstructionist. There is one factor to consider: Has this topic gotten significant coverage in non-trivial sources? Despite the obfuscation and obstruction, I think we have a pretty clear answer to the one relevant question. Nose-counting is irrelevant in comparison. Friday (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural keep, as this really belongs at Deletion Review. Ford MF (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For any "speedy delete" nominations, this article can be cited as justification for opposing it, on the grounds that they need 3 months to prove anyone aside from the author has ever heard of it. This really opens a can of worms. If that's what you want, you've got it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why so? What exactly is the harm in keeping this article around while the author and others look for sources? There are no personal attacks, copyright violations, or other potential legal problems, and the article is not so poorly written, self-promoting, or factually incorrect that Wikipedia's reputation would significantly suffer from hosting it for a little while. If Wikipedia's goal is to build an encyclopedia, prematurely deleting content is about as close to the antithesis of that goal as you can get. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You have given me the exact phraseology I would use to defend most any article up for "speedy delete". Do you really want to be setting such a precedent? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look over the entire situation, you'll see that your suggestion doesn't apply here. It's generally reasonable to give these things the benefit of a little time. However, the author has had 10 years to find sources. He's in a very good position to know what sources are out there. We're already seeing the best he could come up with. No amount of special pleading is a good reason to set aside our normal standards. Friday (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also had 10 years to forget some of my sources. If you look at the latest mKR talk, you'll see a very different story. Rhmccullough (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's another aspect to independent sources. I'm an engineer. Most engineers are self-published. Only the professors in the universities are going to satisfy your independent source guidelines. So, if you want to keep those scruffy engineers out of Wikipedia, don't change your guidelines. Rhmccullough (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete and userfy. Lack of reliable sources, minimal claims to notability. Creator of language himself tends to give evidence against the inclusion of the article. Sadly, all that will happen is the AFD will get closed with a no consensus result, leading to DRV, potentially more AFDs... an admin just needs to IAR; delete, userfy and work with Rhmccullough to see if the article can provide better sourcing within a timeframe. If so, great, a good article. If not, then deletion willb e proven to be correct. Or is that too much of a common sense suggestion? Minkythecat (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:Minkythecat on userfying at this time (as I think I already discussed earlier). Dr. McCullough: If you haven't encountered the term before, "userfy" means that the article would be moved into "userspace" — probably at User:Rhmccullough/mKR (programming language) or something like that — rather than deleted outright. That gives you more time to figure out the sourcing rules and see if there's anything you can do to meet them. Note that pages can be (and are) deleted from userspace as well, but traditionally there is much more leeway there (and anyway, usually a deletion from userspace is due to copyright/libel issues or somesuch, which don't apply here). Userspace isn't an "article graveyard" where any article can be moved willy-nilly, but if you want extra time to find sourcing then this is as good a way to do it as any. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - while I agree with many of the points made regarding the encyclopedic quality of the article, I do believe the subject very much deserves an entry. (If the process suggests userfying then I won't object, though personally I believe a direct entry wouold be more appropriate). I'd hesitate to call myself an expert, though I do have had around 9 years direct experience with Semantic Web and related technologies (and for well over a decade prior to that was an enthusiast of AI and logic languages). While many in the Semantic Web community would disagree with various aspects of the approach taken by Dr. McCullough (myself included!) and find faults in the MKR language, the fact remains that this work is a notable and valuable contribution to the field - even for folks that hate the language, it offers a useful counterpoint to their own arguments. MKR does have several unique characteristics, although (IMHO) it's greatest impact in the Semantic Web community has been as a discussion-starter (which is again taking rather a negative view, but this in itself is notable). Unfortunately I can't find a way of filtering out Dr. McCullough's own emails, but if you read associated posts on the semantic-web@w3.org mailing list [6] you will find plenty of said discussions. Assuming (as I hope) the article is kept, I will be more than happy to review it as an independent specialist (inserting appropriate references etc. as appropriate). Danja (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)