Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aikido (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aikido_(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. -- Lear's Fool 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aikido (programming language)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure programming language. Can't find any notable sources (just because it was made by some guy at Sun doesn't mean it is notable). Christopher Monsanto (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a good contribution to programming language theory and history. No arguments were given why the language is obscure. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woefully uninformed comment - There is zero evidence in the article that this satisfies the general notability guideline. And @Sergey Shandar, the burden of proof is on the person who claims it's notable, not the other way around. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest people use the word "burden" carefully in discussing notability policy, as it tends to confound the discussion with WP:BURDEN content policy. What also helps is to identify relevant notability policy. Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't past the GNG reliable secondary source requirements. All I can find on the internet are the language's webpage, development site (Sourceforge), and a bunch of download sites. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 09:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know why this professionally-written object-oriented interpreter with five patents does not draw more attention, but I could not find independent secondary sources to establish notability. I added one reference from sourceforge, which at least the material is not a wiki mirror. Unscintillating (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.