Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatnik (programming language)

Beatnik (programming language)

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

Still just as non-notable as it was the last 5 times it was deleted. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail needed to establish notability under WP:GNG. Googling turns up (surprise!) nothing. Msnicki (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Your first argument is invalid – this article has been rewritten and its deletion history has nothing to do to with its present notability. And Google or other search engines don't return nothing. I can talk about the outline of sources, but let's keep the discussion objective. I worked hard to improve this article to fit these criteria and it passed the Articles for Creation submission (@Hasteur and Anarchyte:). We have 3 independent sources on this, so I would recommend to Keep. Here's the list of present sources:

Web address	Summary
oocities.org	a mirror of GeoCities.com
esolangs.org	Esolang, which is the biggest resource about esoteric programming languages.
cliffle.com/esoterica/beatnik.html	It's a self-source, but needed only to address the topic's original announcement.
Bcher Gruppe, Esoterische Programmiersprache.	This book (it's in German) would be the most reliable source. It features the topics title ("Beatnik") in the subtitle.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4 if applicable, simple delete otherwise. While it was not really "deleted 5 times" (check the links), no RS turned up at search for notability. I do not know if the page is "sufficiently identical" to its former version for the CSD to be applicable, but I suspect it is. Tigraan (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]