Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarion (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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn and notability has been discussed. Non-admin closure.  Jamie ☆ S93  01:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarion (programming language)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While we don't seem to have any notability criteria when it comes to programming languages, I don't believe this satisfies the general notability requirements we have here. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Struck per notability discussion below. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Clarion programming language is a legacy language that is notable. Unfortunately, the notability under WP:SOFTWARE has fallen to WP:COMPANY and does not take into consideration the differences of notability with software, programming language, etc... Clarion does pass WP:N and there is plenty of WP:RS regarding it.  The article does need to be wiki'd to get rid of the WP:OR look that it has, although it does have the references, it now needs the direct citations and formating.  --Pmedema (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just curious, but which references do you believe establish notability? Most of them appear to be sites that just reprint company press releases (via third parties, I'm specifically looking at the "allbusiness" references). Of the remainder, some appear to be from some sort of newsletter (which I haven't checked out, but I doubt it has the kind of readership that would justify taking seriously). I'm just curious if I overlooked something. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's significant enough that we ought to have an article on it. Admittedly it's mainly of historical interest, but we have articles on all sorts of obscure topics. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to have had sufficient coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs some rewriting, but clearly has enough third-party coverage to pass WP:V and WP:N. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is significant enough to keep. I agree with Pmedema. Fmccown (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Important language, should be kept. QuantumShadow (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm fascinated that so many people think this is notable and yet not a single one of them can point out anything that establishes the subjects notability. Anyone, please? Does this language show up in lists of popular programming languages (in my own personal research prior to nominating it: no, it doesn't appear to be included in such lists, despite other older languages being included such as COBOL and FORTRAN)? Was it ever notable? I'm just looking for some justification for all these Keep votes. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - writeup here at Art of Programming, user groups worldwide UK, US, Aus, S Africa, there's even a Clarion for Dummies book from the well-known series, etc. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, while the artofprogramming.net site and the various user groups aren't reliable sources which can be used to gauge notability, the "for Dummies" book (as well as the various other books linked underneath by other publishers) makes a reasonable case. Granted, they're from the early and mid 1990s, but notability isn't temporary. With that in mind I withdraw my proposal for deletion. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. GreyCat (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2008 (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.