Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosetta-lang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Notability demonstrated - thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rosetta-lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability for over 5 years; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep IEEE standards seem notable themselves, as evidenced by the many articles in the Category:IEEE standards category. I've added a reference to the working group for this standard; the working group counts as a high-profile secondary reference. I've also added a reference to a book devoted to the subject. There are a couple of articles in Electronic Design magazine devoted to Rosetta; Electronic Design is a reputable publisher, so these count as in-depth secondary references, too. One of these refs has also been added. All this adds up to keep. Mark viking (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What did the nom do to try to establish notability? The article cites two reliable sources including a book published on the subject. This seems to be adequate evidence of notability. -—Kvng 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nomination was before reliable sources were added. Thanks for the improvements - nomination withdrawn. Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that's not an excuse. It is your responsibility to look for sources before nominating. -—Kvng 14:12, 22 January 2013 (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.