Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zonnon

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. The consensus is that this article should be deleted. The argument is that there is no independent work about this language, or evidence that anyone other than the creator. Should it be cited in independent academic works, or evidence found that it is being taught by anyone other than the creator (or his representatives), or that it has been written about by anyone other than the creator, then it can be recreated PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Zonnon

Zonnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This language fails to meet the general notability guideline. I count 3 academic papers about the language in the ACM digital library, but they are all by the language creator, and they have each been cited 0 times. On Google, there are a couple of blogs or forum posts, but nothing even close to what is necessary to establish notablity. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• The nominator has withdrawn his request for deletion. To prevent this discussion from being closed as "nomination withdrawn", I will take over this nomination. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable secondary sources supplied that establish notability or support the claims in the article. SQGibbon (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Unless WP:GNG-compliant sources are provided. (as always, WP:SECONDARY sources, etc) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• SpeedyKeep  I think that this AfD should have been closed as SpeedyKeep upon withdrawal by the nominator.  It appears that the language is being taught in two classes in Russia, and that a 110-page book has been written about the language (in Russian) within the last couple of years.  That is plenty to support the SpeedyKeep.  I think that this article has had its time for AfD review.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can we confirm whether the classes are taught by the author of the software, and whether the book was also written by him? Notability is better shown via independent sources, and if all the coverage has been created by the person who wrote the language..... --Enric Naval (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

We, as Wikipedia, have taken the time to consider this AfD, and the process went to a stopping point.  My mentioning of content is to document that there is no basis for ignoring the result of this process and suddenly re-opening the examination.  Wikipedia is both a work in progress, and there is no deadline.  There are many other AfDs taking place at WP:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 20, etc., that need attention.  I think that to pursue this AfD at this point is to advocate for an admin deletion that would be at a minimum controversial and questionable.  See also, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Answer my questions instead of suddenly invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The article cites several sources, among them an article published by Zonnon's creators. A Google News Archive search returns no nontrivial coverage about Zonnon. This is the same with a Google Books search, which returns sources such as this entry, which was written by Zonnon's creators. Likewise, a Google Scholar search returns several results which are not primary. This topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete – Article subject lacks reliable sources. Cannot find any GHits or GNEWS of substance. Fails to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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.