Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JASS

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 (non admin closure) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JASS

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and could be easily covered in a sentence or two in the WarCraft III article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the article is a list of external links. Agree with nom - although maybe there are two sentences for the Warcraft article. --Merbabu (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into MPQ as per that article's AfD
Keep, I don't know how the nominator thinks this article could be covered in a sentence or two. And WP:N is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but WP:V is, and this fails that too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't your reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup, nomination incomplete. [1] 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your right! It isn't clean up, its deletion for articles that do not demonstrate notability. And unless references are added to the article to demonstrate that, it hasn't been demonstrated and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While WarCraft might be notable, its programming language is most likely not. I see no evidence of notability of the code. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A programming language underlying a major commercial product should be seen as presumptively notable; the necessary pro forma sources are presumably rather arcane and the difficulty in specifying them should be taken into account. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is unique to that product, the presumption would be erroneous unless independent sources discuss the code. The presumption is a type of crystall balling, which, by the way, is a Wikipedia no-no. B.Wind (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2008 (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.