Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picat


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Picat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing notability, article reads like a how to guide or a walk through, and was previously csd deleted on copyright grounds. In short, nuke it. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * DELETE. Article does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, the article reads like a manual rather than an encyclopedic article. -- JAaron95 &#40; Talk &#41;  15:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP is not your /man page. (Prolog was supposed to be the language that a poet or philosopher could use. I'm one of those things, and I couldn't even get "Hello World" to work.) For GN reasons and for "manual" reasons, delete. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GNG. Unable to find sources establishing notability. APerson (talk!) 18:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Software (programming language) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs provided are by the author of the software. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this language.Dialectric (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2015 (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.