Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agena (programming language) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agena (programming language)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

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  ►  —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

Hello,

thank you very much for your response.

Of course, articles on Sophie Scholl, the Caliphate of Córdoba, Lua, etc. are quite more significant than any notice about my interpreter.

I found an article on another assertively `rare` language which is not on the deletion list, and will try to adapt the Agena article to it. If the Agena article is deleted, however, I will not complain. And surely, I will _not_ complain on other articles about subjects which I deem `rare` (for I might be terribly wrong) but which will pass the review positively. It just seems that somebody seems to be severely aggrieved. I am still very grateful that at last for some time, there had been an article on my programming language on Wikipedia.

Yours faithfully,

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agena (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, that just because another rare language isn't up for deletion isn't necessarily because it is notable or that the article is written well. It may just be because no-one nominated it. Also, no-one is aggrieved. People just noticed the article and are following the policy of Wikipedia. Personally, I don't care if the article stays or not since you found some form of 3rd party reference.  snaphat  ► 22:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are independent sources, The article is synthetic, well written and objective. I would definitely keep it. Mrtno (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the article again, and I don't see any. Please familiarize yourself with WP:N, and point them out. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I decided I don't care enough to vote delete anymore, because author added a few sources.  snaphat  ► 00:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Are we looking at the same article? Current version has no references and the following external links:
 * * http://agena.sourceforge.net/
 * * http://lua-users.org/wiki/LuaImplementations
 * * http://code.google.com/p/luafltk
 * * http://download.famouswhy.com/publisher/agena_info
 * I don't see how any of these qualify as WP:RS or even independent. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication of rw or wp notability.  Zero references.  Article has existed for plenty of time for those to be included, if they exist. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unless the author can provide more concrete references that indicate "Agena is being or was used in science and architecture projects". —Ruud 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked and couldn't find any reliable independent sources. The links don't count. The homepage naturally isn't an independent source. The LuaImplementations page is a wiki that can be edited by anyone so isn't reliable. The LuaFLTK page isn't reliable either (for the same reasons a blog isn't a reliable source). The FamousWhy page isn't independent. Until one reliable independent source is found, this article should be deleted.  A L K  (Talk) 18:03, 18 August 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.