Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/There's more than one way to do it


 * 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 merge to Perl. Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There's more than one way to do it

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

the two sources are some programmer's blog and python's (?!) offical site. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge I added a journal reference, and there's lots of book references turning up in searches. If not keep, merge to Perl. PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @pianodan: interviews don't contribute to notability. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the interview is in a reliable source, why wouldn't it? Linux Journal is a long established publication. True, quoting Wall himself could be considered a primary, rather than secondary, source of information, but LJ chose to publish the interview.  That interview CERTAINLY counts as supporting notability for Wall himself (not that he needs it), so the argument is whether the mention in that particular article is substantial enough to contribute to notability for the concept, NOT whether interviews themselves are generally off limits for GNG. PianoDan (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * what makes linux journal a reliable source? lettherebedarklight晚安 10:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be? It was an established print journal for over two hundred issues. PianoDan (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep or possibly merge to Perl. It's easy enough to substantiate, but we might not need a whole page devoted to a slogan. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Perl. The article has very little content and we probably don't need an entire article on a slogan anyways. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Perl, per reasoning of and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinadon36 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep More sources have been added since the article's nomination, and we have articles on other programming slogans such as Don't repeat yourself. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. Being mentioned is not significant coverage. The added sources aren't enough to establish independent notability. Cover it in context of its parent article, and don't merge the unreliable sources. czar  02:37, 30 January 2023 (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.