Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenetic (programming language)

Frenetic (programming language)

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

Lacks evidence of notability. Created inappropriately for WP:POINT Glaucus (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NOTE --169.237.10.137 (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~per nom.~~ I'm not privy to the business of the harassment, but I can see some distinctly odd editing, and an article that's about something with no indication of notability shown. And indeed stated so in its creation, which lends credence to the allegation of WP:POINT, unless I'm missing something. As to the language, I couldn't say. I could write in BASIC, but could make COBOL sit up and beg. (The good old days when silica chunks were set upright in the ground...) I can't even work out what this is supposed to be for. I can see that it's not referenced and from (and possibly including) its creation it's been a problem. I could be wrong (which proves I don't program any more...). Peridon (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep following work by Cybercobra. I still feel it is understandable by someone who knows what it is to start with, but that's not a deletion ground. Peridon (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just tweaked the formatting and added the infobox based on info already in the article. I didn't add anything substantive. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harassment? WP:PAPER rst (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in edit summary at the article's history. Peridon (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Creation and nomination both WP:POINTy. But anyway, given that the subject is a programming language, I'm inclined to forgo the WP:GNG. Since the language has a published conference paper, I recommend Keep. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any exemption from the general notability guideline for individual models and designs of tools used in other trades, so why for those used by computer programmers? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG doesn't always work well with software (see e.g. the similar window manager deletion controversy); programming languages are a type of software. Generally, the most important issue is the need to prevent spam / utter-trivia articles; requiring a nontrivial user base or publication in a solid journal seems sufficient to avoid this. I wouldn't oppose a merge, it's just that I don't see an obvious recipient candidate article. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your argument still doesn't go beyond special pleading. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i agree with Cybercobra -- The Elves Of Dunsimore (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]