Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tea (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)

No indication that this is more than a personal project. Flagged for notability since 2011. Dgpop (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three references for notability [1][2][3] Charmk (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Charmk, they did not nominate this article; indeed they recommended keep with sources above. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, thanks for pointing it out. ;-) Given the amount of similar nominations, at some point I didn't check the individual ones any more due to lack of time.... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing is just over GNG. I'd question the nom as weak, was WP:BEFORE done? Widefox; talk 15:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some historical significance behind this language. It was developed by the Walt Disney Internet Group. It's still available here: Tea Trove Project DavidDelaune (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (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.