Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiev (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kiev_(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 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev (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)

So few sources I can't establish whether this language even exists or not. Clearly non-notable. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an unreferenced, one-sentence definition with an external link to a website that went offline in January 2006. WIkipedia is not a dictionary. --Pnm (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are no reliable secondary sources included to establish notability or support any of the claims made in this article. SQGibbon (talk) 08:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this one, really struggling to find sources for this to expand beyond a one line definition. Has no historical/long term interest, barely any current term interest. Consider creating List of programming languages derived from Java --Errant ^(chat!) 11:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, concurring with previous users about sources. Have not been able to find any reliable academic sources that have to do with this language. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 08:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although nominator's spree is outrageous in general, this particular subject is not notable. More importantly, not only this article doesn't assert notability, but its subject doesn't that notability. All Google hits are either Wikipedia mirrors or unrelated. 212.233.112.10 (talk) 10:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This language appears to be long-dead with the only source about it being an archive of the project page. The article has never been more than a stub. - Zwilson (talk) 04:18, 16 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.