Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora (programming language)
- 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)
- Delete per nom.-gadfium 19:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
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?
- It should and surely will have its own page when it becomes a successor to C++, or shows signs of being in the running. Me, I am a potential President of the United States, but that in itself does not me notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nonnotable, advertising. Since "this lanuage is maturing and will be fully released in a few weeks," it also falls under the rubric of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article has no cited sources except the company's own website and affiliates and a user's forum. No evidence presented that the language is important. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per nom.-Shannara. There have been too many trigger-happy admins going through deleting entries on Wikipedia. This really need to stop.
Frankly, for someone to start a delete thread who knows nothing about the langauge, its potential, and its roots, is absurd. People who start these threads are nothing more than trouble makers and loud mouths. The language is a solid compiler with tons of working examples, all it is lacking is a few documentation changes here and there. Do some research before you go and and try to hang something that you have no clue what it is or what it is about. If you bother to WIKI up XNA you will discover that there is a thread about it in here, and it is still technically in ALPHA, although they call it Beta 2 (or community technology preview 1), and its still under development. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge about many existing items. Aurora exists and is real and in use by tons of people.
- KeepZumwaltwood. 19:19, 12 December 2006 (EST)