Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X Sharp


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

X Sharp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks even a single reliable source to establish anything whatsoever, never mind notability. Googling and searching also at Amazon, I expected but was not even able to find the usual how-to programming books on the topic. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A number of sources have since been added, but all are primary and/or self-published as discussed below, still leaving us with nothing to establish WP:Notability under WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unable to find sources. There seems to be another product with the same name which is a .NET library based on xBase. Pburka (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The article was originally based directly on the relevant source code of the Cosmos project. COSMOS, a popular platform for building custom operating systems, uses X# primarily for writing snippets of native code that are called when a low-level snippet or program critical on performance needs to be executed.


 * The X# the deletion proposal above is referring to is a new project that does not bear any resemblance to the programming language that is the subject of this article. I am of the opinion that the overall structure of the article is good and provides basic information on the characteristics of the language, which is useful not only for the developers looking up the language for the first time.


 * I have notified the COSMOS developers.


 * FrewCen (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do not "notify" anyone. That's called WP:CANVASSING.  What's needed to keep the article are reliable sources discussing the topic in detail.  I don't believe those sources exist and without the sources to demonstrate notability, the article must go, no matter how "useful". For more on how to contribute to an AfD, please read WP:AFD and WP:ATA.  Msnicki (talk) 09:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't believe that there are reliable sources discussing X# in detail. What about the official source code I mentioned above, which defines exactly how the language behaves? There is nothing more reliable and descriptive when it comes to computer programs. I consider it to be a bit strange to point out to a lack of sources and simultaneously categorize calling in the X# developers as canvassing, since it's them who, if no one else, could provide those sources.
 * Let us turn this constructive - since it has already been proven that X# is a thing while not being related to xBase, and that this article is based on the publicly-available source code, I think that the description "Unable to find sources" doesn't mirror any current problem. What further action would need to be taken in order to emphasize this fact (e. g. adding citations, more pointers to the COSMOS article...)?
 * FrewCen (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had hoped you'd read the sections of our guidelines to which I provided links. To establish notability requires multiple independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail in reliable sources with reputation for fact-checking and editorial control.  Each of those words means something here on Wikipedia, as explained in WP:GNG.  Basically, the essence of notability is that other people not connected to the subject must discuss it in depth and do it in reliable sources.  You don't have that.  The code for X# was (obviously) written by the people who invented it.  That makes it WP:PRIMARY, meaning it does not contribute to notability.  Msnicki (talk)


 * Good morning I'm one of the Cosmos developers and I can ensure you that indeed X# does exists! We use it daily... I can admit that Cosmos has a "marketing" problem having only a GitHub website and so yes the only other source of X# is our code:
 * https://github.com/CosmosOS/Cosmos/tree/master/source/XSharp.Compiler
 * Let me know if you need anything to avoid the deletion of the article.
 * P.S. The other X# is using the same name but it is not the same thing.
 * FanoI (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that FanoI (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.


 * Firstly, this deletion discussion is about the Cosmos component, not the xBase library. I simply brought that up as the xBase library appears to be better known, and I didn't want people to confuse the two. Secondly, nobody is disputing that X# exists. Finally, please review WP:GNG. If X# hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (e.g. books, academic journals, magazines) then it's not notable by Wikipedia's standards. It might become notable in the future, but it's not there yet. Pburka (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One more thing: when challenging deletion, many editors try to find other articles on Wikipedia which they feel are similar to the one nominated for deletion, and say "what about these pages?". Please review WP:OTHERSTUFF before following that path. If you want this article to be kept, the surest route is to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, per the policies at WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I add some external pages that talk of X#: Channel 9 interview of the lead developer of Cosmos: Article on Codeplex:
 * We put a lot of effort on write this page in the hope too to get more interest on Cosmos and X# itself if you remove it this chance is lost (and so the fact that there are not external sources regarding X# will aggravate), if you want to open the article on the other X# cannot simply add a disambiguation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanoI (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Your first source is an WP:INTERVIEW with the the developer talking about his own stuff. That makes it WP:PRIMARY.  Your second source appears to be a blog on a WP:USERGENERATED site.  That's secondary, but it's not WP:RELIABLE.  Neither of these count toward WP:Notability.  Re:  your other arguments, please consider the advice at WP:HARDWORK, WP:PLEASEDONT and WP:VALINFO.  Then read WP:GNG.  We have a fairly technical set of guidelines by which we decide whether to keep pages, so it's helpful to familiarize yourself with those guidelines when formulating your arguments at an AfD.   Msnicki (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * delete thrilled to know the thing exists. Does not have WP:RS from independent sources. Wholly sourced from "Cosmos team", who seemingly swooped into this discussion perform damage control. Quick scan leaves me w/ impression eligible for WP:CSD. To quote from company rep above, "We put a lot of effort on write this page in the hope too to get more interest on Cosmos and X# itself" Reassurances from the people who stand to benefit from the article staying in terms of free advertising fail to reassure me that this is anything but blatant advertising. Dloh cierekim  02:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, a lot of sound and noise but not a lot of attention from anyone who isn't involved with the project. How can a neutral encyclopaedic article be written without sources from those who are not a part of the "Cosmos Team"?  Does not meet WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:05, 6 May 2017 (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.