Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afnix (programming language)

Afnix (programming language)

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

Obscure programming language. I can't find any sources other than the project's website itself. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No arguments were given why the language is obscure. The article requires improvements.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – How about it lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability. ttonyb (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then the tag should say "enhance". Not "delete". Just common sense.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You or anyone has the ability to do so. In addition the author has been notified and has the burden of providing support for the article. If this does not happen in 7 days after the creation of the AfD the article will most likely be deleted. ttonyb (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being an "obscure programming language" is a "keep" reason in a paperless encyclopedia. There is a preliminary presumption of notability here when Google generates 50,000 hits. In glancing at those hits, I saw many web pages with "afnix" in the URL, each of these web pages documents that "afnix" has been noticed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Obscurity is not a reason to keep anything in an encyclopedia where notability is based on verifiability. Far from 50K GHits is a total of 418 GHits, none of which appear contain any substance that would support Wikipedia defined notability. ttonyb (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you agree that the nominator's statement "obscure programming language" was not based on notability principles. I clicked to page 42 and verify that the 56,500 Google hits changes to 418 Google hits. How did you decide that none of the 418 hits were substantive? Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]