Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MKR_(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 no consensus to delete; article kept. Conflict of Interest is not a good reason to delete an article about something notable. Article has been tagged with {{COI}}, and should be cleaned up. - DiligentTerrier (and friends)21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

non-notable obscure programming language whose article creator and major contributor is a WP:COI problem as the source of most of its references ju66l3r (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note the related discussion at AfD for MKE (my Knowledge Explorer)

• I do not feel that I have a conflict of interest. My primary objective is to advance the state of the art for Semantic Web. All my software is freeware; I get no money for anything. In spirit, mKR/mKE is very much like Notation 3 (aka N3); it attempts to provide users of the Semantic Web with an easy to read presentation of propositions. I think it's only a matter of chance timing that N3 is so popular and mKR is not. I do feel that mKR has something valuable to offer the Semantic Web community. I would be happy to edit the mKR and mKE pages to get rid of any appearance of conflict of interest. As soon as I finish this note, I intend to look carefully at my references. Off the top of my head, I would say that the only reference of mine that ought to stay in is the original 1997 announcement of the existence of mKR and mKE. I can look for someone else's post from the W3C & Yahoo archives to replace mine, or I could just delete those two posts of mine. I certainly welcome any comments from Wikipedia's staff re: what might be considered a better presentation than the present one. I certainly will not do anything to "hide" my pages, or in any other way, to avoid this issue of deletion. Rhmccullough (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - COI is no reason to delete something - though it is something that rhmccullough should bear in mind. As the creator you are inherently biased in favour of the language - that's not a flaw in you, just the way humans work. In terms of notability this seems to be on par with many of the other programming languages I've seen here and it's certainly going to be more widely used than all the esoteric languages that are included (though I appreciate that this is not a strong argument). The article could do with some expansion, particularly in the History section; the definition section could be expanded into a paragraph of prose for use as an introductory paragraph. The information is clearly verifiable, and the article is well cited, so I see no reason to delete. Conrad.Irwin (on wikt) 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Clear WP:COI issue, non-notable obscure programming language. Proxy User (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Proxy User: From the way you talk, you seem to imply that my conflict of interest has surely caused me to make false statements on the pages that I prepared. I thought, in America, you were innocent until proved guilty. Rhmccullough (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't America.. and so:

• Delete. Sources are all debatable, none seem notable. Very little content an outsider would understand. Rehevkor ✉ 00:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While COI is not a deletion criteria, it is something that may cause an article to be too skewed to be savable in its current form. However, lack of notability is a deletion criteria and I can not find reliable sourcing on this software. The cost of the software or intent of the creator are also not valid reasons for having an article. There are websites for software listings, downloads, and descriptions. This isn't one of them unless the software meets the software notability criteria and I do not see how this software does. ju66l3r (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I suggest giving Rhmccullough some time to develop this article some more, after comparing it with other programming language pages on Wikipedia (perhaps the RDF or OWL pages aren't the best; Python's page is a fine example, though.) Note the info-boxes. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the History section, including references, to show how mKR fits into the bigger picture. Let me know if you think further references are needed. Rhmccullough (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article still needs work -- it's barely Start Class -- but there's enough here to build from at this point. I have more comments on the talk page. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have comments re: status on mKR talk, and mKE talk. Rhmccullough (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2008 (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.