Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EC (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

EC (programming language)

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

No evidence of notability. Creator(s) apparently sock-puppets based on November 18 edit history (not confirmed). Apparent advertising or vanity article. Foggy Morning (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; no sign of notability, no reliable sources. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  05:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No evidence of notability from independent reliable sources. Several mins of googling failed to find any. Qwfp (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cloudz679 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Existing web references are non-notable and puppetish. ~ Jafet (spam) 12:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Need More info I think the page may have merit, but it needs to be examined in more detail. Computer language is usually not undstood by people and thus when something lacks understanding it is easier to delete it.  I am not against deleting it, but rather we should not act first then question later.Thright (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. J I P  | Talk 06:10, 11 March 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.