Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mondrian programming language Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mondrian_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 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mondrian programming language

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

Non-notable, searching for it returns essentially nothing, no coverage in notable sources, it doesn't even seem to be actively developed or even have a homepage anymore Tuxcantfly (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You guys obviously didn't look very hard for links. But there they are now and they establish notability. Now someone just needs to incorporate them into the article. Silverseren^C 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Neutral Sorry, I missed those sources, though I still have yet to see any mention of non-trivial usage outside of academia. Nevertheless, the article really does need to be refined to emphasize on Mondrian's unique features; the "hello world" example does anything but that. Tuxcantfly (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, the article certainly needs some work, but we're not here for that, we're here to establish notability. Do the sources do that? Silver seren^C 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, but the cited sources do not cut it; all are self-published, or not independent, or do not give significant coverage; most miss the mark on all three counts (if they are about this language at all, and not about some other homonymous product). --Lambiam 23:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Design and Implementation of Mondrian

Might I ask what is wrong with this source? Silver seren^C 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as this is a paper by the designers of the language, this source would seem not to be quite "independent of the subject" as required by our general notability guideline. --Lambiam 23:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Scripting .NET Using Mondrian"

This, while written by them, is not self-publicity, it is not advertisement, it is not self-published, for it is only contained in a compilation book not of their design, and it is not an autobiography, nor is it a press release. Thus, it does not fit under the "independent of the subject" guiding line. And this source is extremely thorough is discussing the topic at hand. Now, unless you are going to say that while they are the authoritative masters of the subject, they still do not count, this source must then be valid. This article isn't a biography article, it is not about a person, just because they are people affiliated with something that is not another person does not make the source invalid. Silver seren^C 07:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete No independent evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Ridernyc (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (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.