Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora (programming language)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kalekold (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 12 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Aurora (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable programming language software per WP:SOFTWARE; tone is slightly advert-ish. The software is still in beta; Google for Aurora "Ionic Wind Software" finds only trivial mentions of this program on download sites and discussion groups. [1] There is likely to be a conflict of interest here - all of the major changes to the article content have been by accounts or IPs whose only edits are to this article. Kimchi.sg 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.-gadfium 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand why this article should be deleted on the say-so of one person? I am not entirely sure how to even start defending the article with me being a beginner contributing to this site. First of all i tried to make the article as neutral sounding as possible by looking at the other language articles and following their style. Not only that, but this lanuage is maturing and will be fully released in a few weeks. This article was to pre-emp the research of the computer science community and general public regarding Aurora. Of course to you this must sound like marketing talk and one big advert but other users and i hold Aurora in extremely high regard within the OOP systems languages and is a potential successor to C++, which of course DOES make it notable. You show me another language other than Java or SmallTalk that rivals Aurora? This has created alot of dissapointment in the current Aurora community especially as the release date is so imminent. Does this mean that Aurora will never have it's own page until you say?

KeepKalekold 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]