Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simpol


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Simpol

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

There seem to be no independent reliable sources discussing this language, thus it fails the requirement for notability Nerfari (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the heck this means other than this is some mindless boilerplate speak used as a justification for vandalism in the form of knee-jerk deletion.

Simpol is obviously a programming language, in development since around 2000.

It is a successor to Suberbase Basic Language (SBL) which was part of the Suberbase database which was the first Windows based database.

Have you taken a look at all of the programming languages.Databaseg (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to click on the blue links and read what the policies are. No, I haven't taken a look at all the programming languages, probably a lot of them should be deleted too. Nerfari (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know what I'm supposed to click on. But those many many other languages haven't been deleted which means that the test for notability in programming languages is pretty broad. I think mostly you are just interested in being a censor under the purported cloak of "notability". Otherwise you would have deleted about 300 hundred other programming language entries.   BTW, in addition to its link to the past with Superbase_database, I think Simpol becomes notable because is is a new language.Databaseg (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I also cannot find any reliable independent sources that can establish any notability. Remember that notability is determined through the significant coverage of the article through reliable independent sources, not on "why I think it is". We also try not to judge based on the merits of tangentially-related articles (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). MuZemike 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:32, 4 April 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.