Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (programming 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey (programming language)

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

Non-notable programming language released on March 1, 2011 lacking GHits and GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I disagree with the view that the language is not notable, it is simply new. Previous languages made by the same team are notable, and it stands to reason this one will be as well." - quoted from the History page - I agree 216.14.198.58 (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia notability is based on providing verifiable, independent, reliable sources, not the age of the article subject. There does not seem to be adequate reliable sources to support nobility. ttonyb (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Ttonyb1. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability. MLA (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Monkey programming language was evolved from the BlitzMax programming language, and if you use the BlitzMax references as base for the Monkey programming language, it should be more than enough to justify the wiki entry for the Monkey programming language. Lumooja

Comment – Unfortunately notability is not inherited. BlitzMax may or may not be notable, but that has no bearing on the notability of Monkey. ttonyb (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why Wiki requires a certain amount of references for a Wiki entry. What if something unique and spectacular happened once in the whole history, like God appearing to someone, and he even took a picture. There would be no references since only a single person saw it, but it is still a remarkable event.Lumooja

Comment – Simply because Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability. In your example, what if the person was delusional and only saw their reflection in a mirror? Would that necessitate a Wikipedia article? My guess is not. If it were truly a second coming, I am sure there would be a lot of reliable sources to support the event. Until an something can be verified, it cannot be considered by Wikipedia as notable. ttonyb (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 22 March 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.