Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuneiform (programming language)

Cuneiform (programming language)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Cuneiform (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. I checked all of the references in the article, All of them by Jörgen Brandt (The language author) so they are primary resources. Also I can't find secondary resources for notability. Charmk (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - There's enough secondary sources to justify keeping this well written article, but it needs to be shortened. This is an encyclopedia, supposed to contain articles based on notability not the entire sum of knowledge humans have on the subject. 8 pages is silly for this minimally important language. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC) sock vote SL93 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Agree with above comment. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)