Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leopard (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. Carlossuarez46 05:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Leopard (programming language)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to advertise their pet projects. Camillus (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP I can't find any evidence of this being an advertisement for a pet project. The article has been around for 3 years, at least nine different Wikipedians have edited it, and no one (until now) has suggested it be deleted. Using the principles of Inclusionism and good faith edits, this article should remain. As has been suggested, it might be appropriate it to merge it with another article. KEEP IT! Truthanado 14:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Inclusionism" is not a "principle" or a policy that can be used to justify keeping an article, it is a philosophy shared by some, but not all wikipedians. Try googling for Leopard programming language, and you'll find nothing other the projects web pages and other adverts - no independent articles, books etc. This is a project knocked up by a 14 year old, as anyone who knows anything about programming can tell. Camillus (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal. The reason stated for the AfD is that this article was "to advertise their pet projects", and my argument was against that ... I still see no one providing evidence that it is a pet project. I didn't make any comment about notability because that wasn't the basic argument. If you have taken the time to determine that there are few independent verifiable sources, then I suggest you change the reason for the AfD to not notable or the like so it can properly be discussed. I still am somewhat confused though, what has changed in the past 3 years so that this article has gone from acceptable to unacceptable within Wikipedia. Inclusionism in this context should not be taken to mean that we should accept something just because someone has taken the time to do it; here several people have taken the time to improve this article with good faith edits, and I find it hard to overlook that. I still believe the article should stay. Truthanado 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I notice on Camillus user page that he is knowledgeable in computer software, which is the topic of this article. I trust the Wikipedia policy of No original research does not taint his views and that we collectively, as a community, reach a just and valid decision. Truthanado 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions.   -- → AA (talk) — 15:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sign of notability here. MarkBul 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's painful for me to write this because the technology clearly doesn't seem notable, but the subject seems to have lots of independent secondary source citations (Scoble, devshed); some of these hits are not independent (the author of the language works on a major blog) but some of them are. Tqbf 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the above notwithstanding, there is no real assertion of notability here. Eusebeus 18:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, yet. • Lawrence Cohen  20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability can be established by adding independent and reliable published sources. —David Eppstein 02:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, for the same reasons as Beginner's Programming Language above. Pete Fenelon 01:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. This is a somewhat serious project and really shouldn't be tossed in the same bag as Beginners Programming Language. Still, only coverage I could find was an interview and a handful of blog posts. Might become notable in the near future, but I don't think it's there yet. — xDanielx T/C 21:04, 16 September 2007 (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.