Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernova (programming language) (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Supernova_(programming_language)_(2nd_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. Per the deletion arguments based on actual Wikipedia policies. Sam Walton (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (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)

An article on this student project was AfD'd a year ago for being sourced only to blogs and forums, with COI concerns: the author of that article requested speedy deletion before the AfD was closed. This version of the article seems no better. McGeddon (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is about free open source software developed by volunteers interested in AI, it's useful for natural programming languages researchers. Rorman68 (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC) — Rorman68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— Note to closing admin: Rorman68 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a programming language on Sourceforge with nine reviews. Being useful isn't the same as being notable and Google's first couple of pages gave me nothing that would pass wp:N Neonchameleon (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Innovative and notable programming language, I came across this language when I was checking PWCT once joined The ReactOS Project, PWCT is the most popular educational software on sourceforge and Supernova is integrated with that product. ^[1][2]

Progmatwo (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)— Progmatwo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are blogs and user-generated sites like Sourceforge, which we do not accept as reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. The closest to a usable source was the TechWell article, but realistically, this is a pretty marginal source and it only offers a fairly trivial mention. Googling turned up nothing. This topic wasn't notable last year, nothing has changed, and it's still not notable. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The development of the Supernova language has ceased, but it's still notable language and great addition to the field of Natural Language Processing.AndreLuiz19 (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — AndreLuiz19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep I don't agree with the main idea behind the language, but the problems section in the article is very useful, the language is notable and this Arabic book by Wael Hassan talk in many pages about the language problems ^[3]. Supernova is known as an Arabic programming language and there are many news and technical articles about the language written in Arabic. Many students are using it in our school to write simple and small programs. IbnNile (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC) — IbnNile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Sourced only to blog posts and forums; fails WP:GNG. The WP:ITSUSEFUL comments above should not count for much; likely sockpuppetry aside, deletion debates should focus on policy-based decisions, not personal feelings. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS it turns out that there's a past history of sockpuppetry on this subject. I have reopened an SPI: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahmoud Fayed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't waste my valuable time and i respect other people's time.Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One of the few Natural languages that are available in this research area, according to my knowledge we have Inform7, Shakespeare, Supernova and Wolfram Alpha.HSPLNPL (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC) — HSPLNPL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. The article is not fair and half of the article about language problems Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—The issue here is the absence of reliable sources by which we can establish notability for the topic. The keep !votes haven't provided any additional sources; without those, we just don't have enough good material on which to base an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2014 (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.