Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logix (programming language) (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Logix_(programming_language)_(2nd_nomination)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logix (programming language)

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

Was previously nominated by banned user Flylanguage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I closed the discussion as a contribution by a banned user. Per the discussion here, I am re-nominating it without preference. causa sui (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Can't find any 3rd party sources. Seems to be a personal project. The logix stuff mentioned on google scholar seems to be unrelated to the language. snaphat ► 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no proponent for its deletion. Prior AFD was WP:POINT; there was no need to reinstate an AFD brought in what is now clearly bad faith. TJRC (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd nominate it for deletion if it were kept simply because of WP:Point this time. The article consists of two sentences and no references. And no 3rd party references can be found. The original pointy behavior of the nominator doesn't invalidate the fact that other editors in good faith, discussed and voted for the article to be removed. We shouldn't have to AfD the article again just to have the discussion. snaphat ► 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, but see this discussion for an explanation of why some people disagree with you. Since snaphat (talk · contribs) seems to think the article should be deleted, then it may help for you to consider it as if it were his nomination. causa sui (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, count me as Neutral based on Snaphat's effective adoption of the AFD. TJRC (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. —Ruud 10:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero independent coverage, it seems. I can't find any, but I can't be sure none exist with a name like this, but see WP:BURDEN. There's a google books hit for [1] but it appears a different, older language than the one described in this article (Python didn't even exist then). FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:51, 7 August 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.