Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afnix (programming language)


 * 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. The arguments put forward by those favouring deletion (that the article lacks sufficent coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability) have not been effectively refuted by those in favor of keeping it. If such sources can be found, please let me know, and I will consider restoring the article. -- Lear's Fool 02:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Afnix (programming language)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Obscure programming language. I can't find any sources other than the project's website itself. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep No arguments were given why the language is obscure. The article requires improvements.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – How about it lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability.  ttonyb (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Then the tag should say "enhance". Not "delete". Just common sense.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 09:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – You or anyone has the ability to do so. In addition the author has been notified and has the burden of providing support for the article.  If this does not happen in 7 days after the creation of the AfD the article will most likely be deleted.   ttonyb  (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Keep Being an "obscure programming language" is a "keep" reason in a paperless encyclopedia. There is a preliminary presumption of notability here when Google generates 50,000 hits. In glancing at those hits, I saw many web pages with "afnix" in the URL, each of these web pages documents that "afnix" has been noticed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Obscurity is not a reason to keep anything in an encyclopedia where notability is based on verifiability. Far from 50K GHits is a total of 418 GHits, none of which appear contain any substance that would support Wikipedia defined notability.   ttonyb  (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you agree that the nominator's statement "obscure programming language" was not based on notability principles. I clicked to page 42 and verify that the 56,500 Google hits changes to 418 Google hits.  How did you decide that none of the 418 hits were substantive?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – As I stated above, the article subject lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability. The number of Ghits is really not that hard to review if one gets past the "index of/XXX", "downloads", and other items such as "List of Programming Languages", etc.  If I have missed something feel free to add it to the article and notify the AfD participants.  Unfortunately, no one has added any reliable sources to the article in the time the AfD has been active.   ttonyb  (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While in many cases it may be appropriate, it is not the purpose of AfD to add sources to an article. If that was true, editors could abuse the AfD process, in order to bludgeon other editors to add to WP:IDON'TLIKE articles, when they could have added sources themselves.  Tolerance of such AfDs would be a burden on both editors and admins.  If you will look at WP:Guide to deletion you will see:
 * first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.
 * Did this happen before this nomination? Have all of the major contributors been notified?  Where we are now, we really don't know what would have happened had "communal consensus" been followed.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Golly, thanks for the lesson in the use and purpose of AfDs. Feel free to forward this to the nominator.  As I stated above, the article subject lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability.  All you have to do to help the article survive the AfD is add reliable sources.  ttonyb  (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How is saying "All you have to do" anything other than using AfD as a battering ram? Unscintillating (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Feel free to argue this with the nominator. The purpose of this discussion is the notability  of the article.  Once more I have not found any Ghits or GNEWs of substance to support any claims of notability. I look forward to your improvements to the article.  My best to you.   ttonyb  (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – As I am the original author, I have started to enhance the Afnix article, which surely needed improvement. Afnix is not an obscure language. It has been around for 10 years and has served for numerous experiments when it comes to combine advanced functional language with the object oriented paradigm. Afnix is also part of the FreeBSD port collection. It would be unfortunate to see the article deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amauryd (talk • contribs)


 * Comment – The article is not nominated for deletion based on obscurity, but rather because it lacks Ghits and GNEWs of substance and the article provides no independent reliable sources to support claims of notability. All articles in Wikipedia must be  verifiable using WP:RS.  ttonyb  (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sole result is a copy of the Wikipedia article. A Google Scholar search and a Google Books search return no significant coverage. I note that the article is unsourced: The core policy Verifiability mandates deletion. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BURDEN are content policies.  If someone challenges that content in the article is sourced, they might put  templates on such content, and following policy there would be a time to delete that content.  WP:V adds, "But in practice not everything need actually be attributed."  This AfD discussion is not about the content of this article, but whether the topic is notable, WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – Let's try this once more, the article is nominated for deletion because it lacks independent, verifiable, reliable sources to support claims of notability. There is only one way to provide notability for this article – provide independent, verifiable, reliable sources. There is nothing that supports Wikipedia defined notability for this article.  No one expects everything to be supported, but there are no (zero)  independent, verifiable, reliable sources to support any claims of notability for this article. If there are independent, verifiable, reliable sources they need to be added to the article in order for it to survive the AfD.     ttonyb  (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.