- 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. Davewild (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Obix (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)
Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources. ― Padenton|✉ 08:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What does "Unable to find any sources." mean when the current article already lists one eponymously named citation in a RS tech journal? Or when, apart from several ref deletions in recent weeks, it previously included a number of other sources.
- I know nothing of Obix. But on this evidence alone, I would not seek to delete the article on it. Nor do I consider a clearly false boilerplate nomination (the nominator is bulk nominating many related articles, all with the same vacant rationale) of "Unable to find any sources." to be an accurate nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many related articles are failing to meet WP:GNG. 1 of those sources is a forum post. DeveloperIQ is a web citation to a webpage that has clearly never had any content. FOSS User is an open source magazine and that is not an official link from the FOSS User website (read: anyone can put in the magazine anything they want, making it a WP:SPS), I'll let you have the second DeveloperIQ citation. I do like that your argument was based on actual policy and facts this time, rather than editing my words so your argument would look better. ― Padenton|✉ 14:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not convinced at all by the sources in either the current or earlier versions of this article. If I am to interpret the HTTP redirect from rps-obix.com to practical-programming.org, the language either got renamed or superseded by PPL, but even then this seems to be a one-man project. As Czarkoff noted at the previous AfD, the sources are all of the type "here's a new prog. lang. and this is what it looks like", rather than in-depth coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:54, 18 April 2015 (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.