Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pollen (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 16:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pollen (programming language)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Absolutely no proof of notability, created by a COI editor ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable programming language. Additionally, per the article creator's user page, they've stated they are the creator of this programming language. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two included sources do not prove WP:GNG as one is Github (generally unreliable unless stated as per local consensus) and the other is not independent one (both fail per WP:RS, first one per WP:SPS). A09 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered nominating this when I left the COI template on the creator's userpage, but was about to go to bed and didn't have time for WP:BEFORE and then kind of forgot about the whole thing. Looking around now, I see nothing to suggest notability.

n.b. There is also another language called Pollen that is not this one. I don't think that one's notable either, but it's certainly more notable than the one being discussed here. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 18:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have discussed my reasons to keep the article on my talk page but I've been continuously attacked by Eejit43 and Emily. I believe the quality of the page is good enough for a stub and other Wikipedia users need to have a chance to discover this article to read and contribute to it. Additionaly, I believe they might have a connection with the author of the "Pollen" macro system that Emily specified and linked to (the pollen in this article is about a general purpose programming language). The project has been receiving vandalism, pishing and false reports. They also don't seem to have any deep understanding of the Pollen programming language, as they specified they never heard of it (and maybe is one of the reasons they want to delete the article). They also don't seem to have enough knowledge about systems programming languages to even use Pollen. M4t3uz (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: M4t3uz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

M4t3uz, having seen hundreds of AFD discussions, this article is highly unlikely to be Kept since you are the only vocal supporter of this opinion. You'd have better luck asking for the article to be "Draftified" and moved to Draft space so you could continue to work on it and improve it. Once it is deleted, it is gone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M4t3uz, editors do not need to have expert-level knowledge of a topic to edit an article about it. Also, It would be a mistake to believe that you have ownership over any article on Wikipedia, even ones you create. Accusing others of have harmful motives without evidence goes against Wikipedia's requirement of assuming good faith towards fellow editors. I've read nothing on your talk page that could be considered as an attack; it is your close connection to the topic that makes you perceive them as such. Having emotional detachment from your work on Wikipedia is essential, which is exactly why we don't like editors writing about topics where they have a conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I tried to userfy the page to as a way to draft it, but it may seem as an attempt to take ownership of it, as you mentioned. The objective was to allow other editors to access the page because I thought the topic would be unlisted in all possible ways. I took some time to learn about drafts today, and it seems I can still link to it from other pages. Drafts are a relatively new feature to me.

The Wikipedia Draft space was created in 2010. It was designed as a space where new articles could be created and worked on without immediately being published to the main Wikipedia site. The Draft space allows articles to be reviewed and improved by editors before they are moved to the main space. This helps ensure that articles meet Wikipedia's guidelines for quality and accuracy before they are made public. M4t3uz (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I linked to the other Pollen solely to draw attention to it not being the same thing, in case others weren't paying enough attention and thought otherwise. I'd never heard of either of them before this. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 23:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Then I would consider salting due to the above comments from the article's creator.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly non-notable topic. As such it should not be moved to draft or userspace, especially with the COI concerns. If it becomes notable in the future, they can create a draft at that point. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2023 (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.