Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fawlty 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Fawlty Language

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

PROD removed without comment, no notability asserted, only ref is primary. Black Kite 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - lots of google hits, but I am unable to find any reliable sources in those search results. Lots of directory entries, blogs, and forum posts though. -- Whpq (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Many of the top hits appear to return either weak advertising for the said article or unacceptable references. Suggest further delving. Cheers.  Im per a t § r (Talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - I have delved quite deeply. I can't find the sources and have put forth the effort.  If somebody can produce such sources, I'll quite happily change my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not assert its notability. There are hundreds of compilers/languages out there.  You need to show some kind of notability since simply existing is not sufficient given the nature of the field. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I guess I'd have to say Delete, since this article doesn't tell me anything that the line "Fawlty Language (FL) - another IDL clone (closed source, but freely usable)" (which I took from the IDL (programming language) article) doesn't tell me. It's also very hard to find anything on Google about it other than announcements of its release, people asking questions about it on mailing lists, etc.  Matt (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a feature list. IDL is a $$$ software and I think users should know about free alternatives. Also, there are two IDL clone articles: FL and GDL. Delete both or keep both. (flwiki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flwiki (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to keep in my view. This is not a software directory, free or otherwise.  Indeed, the fact that it is simply a free alternative to something else makes it less notable in my view since it is not covering new ground. CrispMuncher (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2009 (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.