Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citrine (programming language)

Citrine (programming language)

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

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

Non-notable programming language, just 1 reliable reference (InfoWorld), that doesn't provide a significant coverage to satisfy GNG. I tried to find references for notability, I can't find them.

References in the article:

[1] entry submitted by Gabor de Mooij (The language author)

[2] not notable

[3] users content

[4] One reference is not enough for GNG

Also the project in GitHub [5] looks not active (67 stars!). Charmk (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-09 ↻ restored, 2020-08 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd not call the project inactive: they had a release in March, and they plan their next release next March [6]. The Jax magazine coverage appears to pass the independent and substantial tests of a source for notability: for GNG the question is, does it count as reliable? — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the notability case is borderline according to the GNG and the article has maintenance tags indicating nontrivial content issues, but the article is decently written and interesting. In the absence of verifiability or neutrality issues, I don't think we should be deleting this kind of article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is written by user (Gabordemooij). The user name is identical to the language author (Gabor de Mooij) Charmk (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]