Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosetta Code

Rosetta Code

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

There is no indication of notability for this website. I searched and could find no reliable sources. While there are links listed on talk, they do not meet WP:RS. As it does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:WEB, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Non-notable website & organisation. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep site is itself cited by WP about 40 times. Esp in reference to programming languages and algorithiums. NevilleDNZ (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In order to be kept, the notability must be established through references in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote withdrawal - sorry, at the moment I don't have opportunity to read through the catalogue of reasons a page should be deleted vs kept, me thinks a Wikipedia expert is required who knows the keep rules. I see the problem being that Rosettacode is only peer reviewed and it is a purely electronic entity. Hence Rosettacode in not in newsprint, and would have few paper scholarly citations.

Question: There are 40+ "wikilinks" to http://rosettacode.org. Are these links & contributions (under the same "delete-me/AfD" reasoning) set to be removed too? {re: WP:BOLD (with civility, please!): I'm thinking, if so then it would be polite to add an appropriate "delete-me" note to the both the wikilinks and other wikipedia links/URL's also. e.g these other pages: Google: site:wikipedia with rosettacode => About 261 results (0.24 seconds)}. NevilleDNZ (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep site, maybe the the site is not referenced that often. I see this often with community sites, there are less references because the main content/work/reference is on the site itself. There are several thousand users registered on RC and in the last month more than one hundred people contributed/worked/changed something. This has to be considered as well. Peter.kofler (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no in fact it doesn't. That has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please try to provide arguments that are valid per WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep site, It has a reference from Slashdot, http://slashdot.org/story/07/01/21/1410208/Building-a-Programmers-Rosetta-Stone. Without the reference from Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/story/03/01/22/0258226/Wikipedia-Reaches-100000th-Article), Wikipedia itself would be a sad and lonely place. Although experienced programmers know about it and have already bookmarked it, people new to programming would likely look to Wikipedia first. The deletion of this page would deprive them of knowledge helpful to researching programming languages.Degrees (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]