Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kitten_(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. Michig (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a programming language that fails notability. No source. Only external link to the programming language's home page. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - Can't seem to find any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I'm not seeing any third-party coverage at all. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG lack of WP:RS. ---Jersey92 (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - couldn't find any evidence that is is covered in anything approaching a reliable source, and the title isn't suitable to warrant a redirect to concatenative programming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:39, 1 September 2014 (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.