Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooks (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks (programming language)[edit]

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

Fails General Notability Guideline, WP:NSOFT. Unable to find any sources. Also, possibly the shortest stub I've ever seen. ― Padenton|✉ 08:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! It's hard to argue against this -- I think I was looking for information about this programming language when I created this article, but the fact that the stub hasn't been expanded and no new publications on this seem to have appeared suggests that notability is limited. About shortest stubs, however, there are far worse; check out Special:ShortPages and e.g. Deutscher Erzählerpreis (2008) -- at least I included a reference, and information that's not implicit in the title! :-) Joriki (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, one line, one reference in a self-published paper not cited by anybody, if CiteSeer#CiteSeerX got that right. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2015 (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.