Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nosica

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. Tone 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nosica[edit]

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

This language has essentially no coverage from sources other than its main website. Fails to be notable. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning here. Cut out the spree, it's counter to our purposes here. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly the user does not feel like improving the article and instead wants it deleted. I found many links just on the first pages of google and instead of asking for this page to be deleted I added them to the wikipedia entry. This deletion spree must stop just because some languages aren't up to the users standards. 198.151.130.66 (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of your links help to establish notability as they are all links to project pages and a mailing list. Were you able to find any reliable secondary sources? SQGibbon (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable secondary sources supplied that establish notability or support the claims made in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with User:SQGibbon above -- I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources to establish notability, so the article clearly fails the general notability guidelines. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Errr, if it's still a developing language it's going to be hard to find third party secondary sources that talk about it in any detail. Apart from failing the notability guideline, ther is another problem: it's kind of hard to write a good encyclopedic article with only primary sources, for a topic that has next to zero history. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:11, 18 February 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.