Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulfur (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sulfur_(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. Michig (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested WP:PROD. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for things you WP:MADEUP. Msnicki (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 08:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: May be it could find its way to Wikipedia one day, but it should become notable before. Currently I see no evidence of at least some coverage in secondary or third-party sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article seems to be an attempt to gain publicity for a newly-launched command scripting language. Whatever its possible merits, there are essentially no sources available, and the article (and a mention at Microsoft) imply this is purely promotional. Better wait until notability is established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the current scope of this language, I doubt that there are any hidden secondary sources that we're not seeing. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:The main two points that I have against this is that it is WP:TOOSOON and that it seems to be mainly promotional.--CanvasHat 03:31, 30 December 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.