Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptor (programming language)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Raptor (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. The notability tag was removed before after adding a reference, but this paper is written by the language author (Martin Carlisle) Charmk (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This book about the language is published using (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) - No notable publisher, and can't be used for notability. Charmk (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry? Now not only topics have to be notable, but so do the publishers of any references? When did that happen? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's a misapplication of the primary notability criterion. The criterion is whether there are multiple sources that are in-depth coverage by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. So how, exactly, is a 150-page book, written by Steve Hadfield et al., not in-depth coverage of the subject written by credentialled subject-matter experts that (at least according to the WWW site) are not the creators of the tool? Please explain. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Steve Hadfield works in US Air Force Academy, and RAPTOR is hosted and maintained by US Air Force Academy, this is a primary source, Also the book is distributed using (self publishing tools - no publisher) Charmk (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here's a tip for free: If you're arguing with Uncle G; he's right, you're wrong. In the whole of geological time, he's probably got a few goofs stashed away somewhere. But on the whole, if you're ever disagreeing with him, check yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I respect all of Wikipedia editors and administrators, and I'm happy to learn new things every day. Yes he is right with respect to (significant coverage in the book) but I added more information that prove that This is a Primary Source so we can't use it for notability according to my knowledge, if I'm wrong, tell me? Charmk (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here's a tip for free: If you're arguing with Uncle G; he's right, you're wrong. In the whole of geological time, he's probably got a few goofs stashed away somewhere. But on the whole, if you're ever disagreeing with him, check yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- keep Nomination as "just not notable" still doesn't carry much weight, no matter how many articles you AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please list references for notability that are not (Primary Source) because these references doesn't exist and this article fail GNG Charmk (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)