Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aikido (programming language)

Aikido (programming language)

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

Obscure programming language. Can't find any notable sources (just because it was made by some guy at Sun doesn't mean it is notable). Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a good contribution to programming language theory and history. No arguments were given why the language is obscure. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woefully uninformed comment - There is zero evidence in the article that this satisfies the general notability guideline. And @Sergey Shandar, the burden of proof is on the person who claims it's notable, not the other way around. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest people use the word "burden" carefully in discussing notability policy, as it tends to confound the discussion with WP:BURDEN content policy. What also helps is to identify relevant notability policy. Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 15 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) 01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't past the GNG reliable secondary source requirements. All I can find on the internet are the language's webpage, development site (Sourceforge), and a bunch of download sites. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 09:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know why this professionally-written object-oriented interpreter with five patents does not draw more attention, but I could not find independent secondary sources to establish notability. I added one reference from sourceforge, which at least the material is not a wiki mirror. Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]