Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Einstein_(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. Tone 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. This is the *only* information I could find about the language: [1]. The link to its homepage from that article redirects to a company that doesn't even sell the product. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Author could pretty much use his own userspace for this matter. There are lots of non-notable programming languages that appear every month. Some get fluctuating between low amount of users who keep using it from time to time. Definitely fails to meet guidelines to be kept as an article. Userpd (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no reliable secondary sources supplied that establish notability or support the claims made in the article. Doesn't even have a homepage anymore? How is it possible for anyone to verify the contents of this article? If it's impossible to verify any of the claims then it needs to go. SQGibbon (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of importance or significance, and no sources could be located. decltype (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have attempted to find any reliable academic sources and came up empty. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 08:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that User:Ubernostrum and User:Throwaway85 above have posted the above verbatim comments on every one of the programming language AfDs that has come up in the past week. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 08:39, 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.