Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agena (programming language) (2nd nomination)
- Agena (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication article topic passes WP:GNG. Zero independent sources. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
delete Isn't notable per WP:N, because it lacks any independent sources. The only reference I can find that isn't by the authors page or related to the author is the following: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Agena . I personally don't think that counts as enough sources. The author also seems to have edited the page many times. (same text, I wrote on the last nomination that got closed because of pointy behavior) snaphat ► 00:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
although the discussion proposing the deletion of this article confuses me:
1) the Agena (programming language) article has been kindly set up by an editor who is interested in languages, and who I do not know,
2) frequent editing is not an indication of bad quality. Quite the opposite: we are online, thus wysiwyg, and we do not write articles over and over again on typewriters any longer before they are being sent to our editors,
3) I could write lengthy chapters on the language - but I will not, and finally:
4) Agena is being or was used in science and architecture projects. Projects not mine.
5) An independent link has been added to the Agena article: http://lua-users.org/wiki/LuaImplementations & http://code.google.com/p/luafltk.
Thank you.
Agena — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agena (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- The original discussion was simply because an author of some other language tried to get all articles deleted that he didn't find notable after his own language got delete. It was re-opened because there was legitimate discussion regarding the notability of the subject by other editors. Personally, I don't believe the article passes WP:N. Adding multiple independent 3rd party sources will go a long way to alleviate my concerns and anyone elses. The point I was making regarding frequent editing of the article is that that it may signify a conflict of interest- nothing less, nothing more. snaphat ►