Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon Definition Language

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Definition Language

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

Non-notable programming language. This article has been sourceless for over six years and I can find no sources that would satisfy WP:V or WP:N, only hits to WP and its mirrors or to unrelated things with a similar name. Half the article is a copy and paste of a man page for tangentially related software. A prod on this page was previously removed by the article's creator. Reyk _YO! 06:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. At least, none that have been digitized. If someone can locate offline sources, then the article can be recreated. I thought about redirecting to the successor mentioned in the article, but I think that article could very well end up being deleted, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Six years is far too long. —Swpb^talk 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unreferenced software article of unclear notability. A search turned up no significant coverage of this language.Dialectric (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2014 (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.