Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judoscript

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judoscript

[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)

There are two reasons why this article should be deleted. The first reason is that it fails WP: N. A PROD on this article failed, but neither of the sources suggested when dePRODing covers the subject in-depth. The second reason is that this article is almost entirely (>80%) written by a user named JianboHuang, a single-purpose editor whose name closely matches that of the creator of the language. While AfD is not a venue to determine whether a COI has occurred, the edits made by this user cover the subject in excessive detail and in a tone that isn't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. At this point, I think WP: STARTOVER applies here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2024, everyone knows that we are not a free web host for one's computer thing. The vast majority of content has been created by two SPAs, who might be sockpuppets. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please look at the potential sources I added to Talk:Judoscript. ~Kvng (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's already addressed in the AfD.

A PROD on this article failed, but neither of the sources suggested when dePRODing covers the subject in-depth.

Even if these sources can actually establish notability, this article almost entirely contains content that isn't fit for an encyclopedia. Removing that content would essentially amount to blanking the page. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (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.