Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAR (programming language) (third nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SCAR_(programming_language)_(third_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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to run until at least 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Still no reliable sources, and sketchier than it was the last time it was deleted. David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you think that the product website is a reliable enough source for the product in question? GSMR (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For its existence, sure. WP:N requires more than that, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless notability can be proven, which doesn't seem too likely. GSMR: product websites and the like cannot be used to establish notability - see WP:SPS. Xenon54 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Just some random, unpopular, Win32 closed-source language. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. Just a failed, unpopular software product. No arguments or improvment to the page adfter previous AfDs address this major failing.Yobmod (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. decltype 14:16, 7 February 2009 (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.