Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superx++

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 00:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superx++

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

Very minor programming language with no sign of use in the real world. Project website has three links to coverage on third-party websites; two defer to a defunct website (topxml), one to an article by the project's maintainer. There's a passing mention in this ACM Queue article, but no in-depth coverage.

~~PROD declined by Amatulic.~~ QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very simply, this programming language is not notable. In my search, it was possibly notable as the "least readable language". In Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_133#Superx.2B.2B an unnamed IP address states for recreation "several unique concepts" as part of the article. I find no reliable sources for any "unique concepts" to verify and they are not reflected in the article other then the programming language exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to Qwertyus' assertion, I didn't decline the prod. The article had already been deleted as a result of the prod. I simply restored it by request at WP:REFUND and removed the long-expired prod which had gotten restored along with the article, as is the proper procedure.
The article hasn't been improved since then, so I see no reason to keep the article.
By the way, the topxml links are recoverable on archive.org [1] [2] — but they don't constitute "coverage" of the topic, just documentation. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have checked the log as well as the history. (Shouldn't refunds be listed on the talk page?) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability. delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: although this esoteric programming language could be interesting to some, it definitely does not pass WP:GNG test. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:37, 24 July 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.