Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abundance (programming language) (4th 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. Mr.Z-man 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abundance (programming language)

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

There are no references other than an old article in Byte Magazine which was a self submitted article by the author, the claims put in the article have had no references despite a request for them nearly 3 years prior. PeteBaltar (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"was a self submitted article by the author..." Which author, the author of the Byte article or the author of the WP article? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Which author, the author of the Byte article or the author of the WP article?" Sorry, it was authored by the author of the "Abundance Language" Roedy Green, he submitted an article to "byte magazine" about the language he was allegedly working on, there are no other references to it or its use anywhere else I can find other than his own writings in that article and his blog. PeteBaltar (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that being publised by Byte, a very reliable source indeed, even if writen by the creator of the language, takes this out of the self-published category, However, I am not sure if a single published reference is sufficient. DES ^(talk) 15:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it takes it out of "self published", it doesn't make Green writing about Green's program any more "independent". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green wasn't independant of course, but Byte surely was. If we assume that Byte's editorial staff passed the article, then I think we can consider this "coverage in an independent source". Whether it is enough coverage is still a question. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail WP:NRV & WP:SELFPUB. I searched for a bunch of different keyword combinations in google and could only come up with notes from mindprod.com which is the application writers home page. It doesn't appear to be a programming language but rather a simple dos application that he stopped updating and lost the notes/installtion for three decased ago, he also mentions someone [NASA] told him that NASA cannibalized his code, that's as much as I can find about the application, him and NASA (self published reference to nasa @ http://mindprod.com/precis/ab.txt) DarExc (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've searched, and come up with nothing beyond Green's own blog [1] - where he remarks that "I have left this tombstone entry for historical interest". Perhaps sadly, history seems to have taken little or no interest at all - and without independent sources, neither will Wikipedia. Self-promotion, even in Byte magazine, cannot substitute for demonstrable notability from independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Apparently too obscure to be remembered by anyone but the author. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without reliable secondary sources it does not pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If no one, as a result of three deletion discussions, has found any citations to prevent further deletion proposals, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that such citations simply don't exist, and this isn't a notable subject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As so eloquently stated by User:John Broughton. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:42, 5 November 2013 (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.