Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernova (programming language)

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 speedy delete - author request. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (programming language)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently minor programming language sourced only to blogs and forums. (Possible COI; article creator User:Msfclipper has only edited articles related to the work of Mahmoud Samir Fayed - namely this and PWCT (programming language).) McGeddon (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—notable : Supernova programming language, is a free open source software and [| one of the few natural programming languages], Google return about 7940 results] , this research paper provide a reference to Supernova Msfclipper (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That research paper focuses mainly on a different language and gives Supernova only a single, dismissive paragraph of comparison, although it does call it "the first Arabic natural programming language". Is this what Supernova is best known for? --McGeddon (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova is known for more than one reason, (1) the language is a natural programming language and there are few of these languages that are developed for research. (2) the language allow writing text based source code in English keywords, Arabic keywords and English /Arabic keywords in the same program. (3) the language token is a letter and it's not case/line/space sensitive, (4) the language developed using a visual programming language called PWCT and it's the first text based programming language developed using a visual programming language. (5) the language is free open source Msfclipper (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 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, Msfclipper should request the article be userfied if he'd like to continue working on it as he looks for more suitable sources. Msnicki (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (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.