Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow programming

Slow programming

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

NN term, likely WP:NEOLOGISM. No RS sources. The term is not mentioned in the source given (which despite being Salon, was pulled from AlterNet), and Google search turns up Reddit, Facebook, and blogs. MSJapan (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slow movement (culture) or delete. It doesn't look like this really caught on in reliable sources. Like I said the last time this slow movement stuff came up at the AfD, I think we have way too many of these articles that have never adequately established notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fully unsourced and fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no reliable sourcing anywhere to even verify basic information, let alone establish notability. Reyk _YO! 11:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like an interesting concept, but I couldn't find any sources to support GNG. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is enough information to describe the terminology but nothing in reliable secondary sources so fails our notability guideline. We used to program like this 100% of the time in the '90s. DeVerm (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]