Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythryl: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*'''Keep''' If something seems obscure to you it's not a reason to delete. Moreover there is a book about this language: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Family-Objective-Concurrent/dp/1155461290 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vorov2|Vorov2]] ([[User talk:Vorov2|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vorov2|contribs]]) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
*'''Keep''' If something seems obscure to you it's not a reason to delete. Moreover there is a book about this language: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Family-Objective-Concurrent/dp/1155461290 <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vorov2|Vorov2]] ([[User talk:Vorov2|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vorov2|contribs]]) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
**'''Comment'''. I'm proposing this language for deletion not because it is obscure, but because there are no reliable sources that cover it. Anyone can self-publish a book, so "having a book" in and of itself does not establish notability (see [[WP:RELY]]). This book has never been cited, as far as I can tell. It doesn't have a well-known publisher. It's not even exclusively about Mythryl. Why would this be a reliable source? [[User:Christopher Monsanto|Christopher Monsanto]] ([[User talk:Christopher Monsanto|talk]]) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC) |
**'''Comment'''. I'm proposing this language for deletion not because it is obscure, but because there are no reliable sources that cover it. Anyone can self-publish a book, so "having a book" in and of itself does not establish notability (see [[WP:RELY]]). This book has never been cited, as far as I can tell. It doesn't have a well-known publisher. It's not even exclusively about Mythryl. Why would this be a reliable source? [[User:Christopher Monsanto|Christopher Monsanto]] ([[User talk:Christopher Monsanto|talk]]) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
***'''Comment'''. OK, now I see there is no point to discuss anything with you. From now on I will consider all your changes to programming languages articles as vandalism. And recommend the rest to treat you as troll. Luckily there is a Wikipedia policy against the trolls. |
|||
Revision as of 19:40, 8 February 2011
- Mythryl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obscure programming language. I can't find any reliable sources. Additionally, this page has had the notability tag for almost a year. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep If something seems obscure to you it's not a reason to delete. Moreover there is a book about this language: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Family-Objective-Concurrent/dp/1155461290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm proposing this language for deletion not because it is obscure, but because there are no reliable sources that cover it. Anyone can self-publish a book, so "having a book" in and of itself does not establish notability (see WP:RELY). This book has never been cited, as far as I can tell. It doesn't have a well-known publisher. It's not even exclusively about Mythryl. Why would this be a reliable source? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. OK, now I see there is no point to discuss anything with you. From now on I will consider all your changes to programming languages articles as vandalism. And recommend the rest to treat you as troll. Luckily there is a Wikipedia policy against the trolls.
- Comment. I'm proposing this language for deletion not because it is obscure, but because there are no reliable sources that cover it. Anyone can self-publish a book, so "having a book" in and of itself does not establish notability (see WP:RELY). This book has never been cited, as far as I can tell. It doesn't have a well-known publisher. It's not even exclusively about Mythryl. Why would this be a reliable source? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)