Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat (programming language) (2nd nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm afraid the delete !voters carry the day on this one but if somebody does find some supersources let me know. I'll be glad to userfy or incubate this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cat (programming language)

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

Fails to pass the GNG or meet other basic notability guidelines. No sources provide independent and significant coverage to establish notability. More specifically, all of the sources are either written by the language's designer or are not about the language. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, not that it alone is a valid reason for deletion, this article seems to have been created by the language's creator.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can't see a valid reason to delete this article, but the same goes to as to keep it, however I've found books and scientific publications about it, but they do not reinforce its notability at all. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no big deal if the article's creator is the language's designer, as long as he/she keeps the WP:NPOV it is very acceptable, many members from HP and Microsoft, like CEO's, Designers, Engineers, Developers, among others contributed to articles of the ranging area, so the is no big deal. The factor that should be discussed is either if the article is notable, relevant and not-spam like. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know, you'll notice I prefaced that second comment with "not that it alone is a valid reason for deletion." But it can often help speak for a lack of notability when both the sources and the article itself are written by the creator; its much less likely that the subject has been recognized.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and work for better references, references are hard to isolate because of the ubiquity of the word "cat". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those are valid keep votes. "I can't see a reason to delete" is not a reason, although that does look like a good faith vote. And "references are hard to find" is absolutely not a valid keep reason, as you should know. It's not like this is a new article; it's been around for 4 years or so. Do either of you have more valid arguments?--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's really not that hard to search for. Throw in the name of the creator or the words programming language, and everything's pretty relevant, although not notability establishing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've had classmates in the past that have developed similar languages with perhaps more coverage than this. The creator's own webpage here doesn't help its case either. Bulldog123 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I don't want it to sound like I'm being dismissive of keep !votes. But unless you're bringing sources which establish notability to the table, keep arguments will have to give reasons for why this non-notable programming language should be an exception to the minimum notability requirements that the GNG asks for. This isn't a case of an article that was just created or where sources are very likely to exist; it's existed for four years, and has been through an AFD before; we're far past the point of "give it more time". Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not a fan of notability as a primary criterion for deletion, but the language author's involvement in writing this article raises the bar a little bit. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it is true that finding sources is complicated because putting "cat" into a search gives you a lot of irrelevant stuff about (amusingly captioned) furry carnivorous quadrupeds. But that is no reason to exempt the article. Reyk _YO! 04:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to search through so many results to find the valid ones. Found this one: [1] Not sure if that counts though. Dream Focus 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blog post by the article and language's creator, not acceptable per the GNG, sorry. Not sure what your argument is; you couldn't find any sources so it should be kept? You bolded keep, but your argument says delete, if the best source that can be found is the creator's blog. I think it's become pretty clear at this point that no acceptable sources are gonna be turning up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find trivial mentions. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.