Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mythryl

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 as insufficient evidence of notability has been shown. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mythryl

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

Obscure programming language. I can't find any reliable sources. Additionally, this page has had the notability tag for almost a year. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If something seems obscure to you it's not a reason to delete. Moreover there is a book about this language: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Family-Objective-Concurrent/dp/1155461290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm proposing this language for deletion not because it is obscure, but because there are no reliable sources that cover it. Anyone can self-publish a book, so "having a book" in and of itself does not establish notability (see WP:RELY). This book has never been cited, as far as I can tell. It doesn't have a well-known publisher. It's not even exclusively about Mythryl. Why would this be a reliable source? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. OK, now I see there is no point to discuss anything with you. From now on I will consider all your changes to programming languages articles as vandalism. And recommend the rest to treat you as troll. Luckily there is a Wikipedia policy against the trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Books LLC, which publishes that book, is an imprint that reproduces material from Wikipedia. So that book cannot be used as a source, or to prove notability. William Avery (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No research has been made about notability of this language by Christopher. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Rather than accusing someone of trolling it would be of greater benefit to establish notability for the article. As it stands the article lacks "non-trivial" reliable sources. A quick glance of GHits and GNEWS offers no independent, verifiable reliable sources. Sergey Shandar you may or may not be right that Christopher has not done little research on the language, but you offer no support to validate the article's notability. Vorov2 you are right that obscurity when applied by an individual is not a reason for article deletion; however, overall obscurity is. Again, what would be productive would be the application of "non-trivial", verifiable reliable sources.

Shall we all take a deep breath and focus on the article and providing the support to establish notability. This will establish a far better outcome that will save the article from deletion. My best to all. ttonyb (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Christopher, you was add page about language (Frenetic) and it have been deleted with the base "no reliable sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – VladD2, rather than making unrelated comments, you might want to add some reliable sources to the article. You have not provided any valid reason for your keep comment. ttonyb (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable programming language lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. In spite of community support, no one has been able (or willing) to provide reliable sources for the article. ttonyb (talk)
Delete As Ttonyb1 said, no one has been able to provide any acceptable sources to establish notability. The article has been flagged for quite some time, yet there is still nothing. Also, it should be noted that Vorov2 and VladD2 are essentially SPAs whose overwhelming activity seems to be to oppose Christopher's AfD's. Glaucus (talk) 22:23, 12 February 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.