Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raptor (programming language)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in response to his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor (programming language)

[edit]

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

Raptor (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. The notability tag was removed before after adding a reference, but this paper is written by the language author (Martin Carlisle) Charmk (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This book about the language is published using (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) - No notable publisher, and can't be used for notability. Charmk (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry? Now not only topics have to be notable, but so do the publishers of any references? When did that happen? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a misapplication of the primary notability criterion. The criterion is whether there are multiple sources that are in-depth coverage by identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. So how, exactly, is a 150-page book, written by Steve Hadfield et al., not in-depth coverage of the subject written by credentialled subject-matter experts that (at least according to the WWW site) are not the creators of the tool? Please explain. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Steve Hadfield works in US Air Force Academy, and RAPTOR is hosted and maintained by US Air Force Academy, this is a primary source, Also the book is distributed using (self publishing tools - no publisher) Charmk (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a tip for free: If you're arguing with Uncle G; he's right, you're wrong. In the whole of geological time, he's probably got a few goofs stashed away somewhere. But on the whole, if you're ever disagreeing with him, check yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect all of Wikipedia editors and administrators, and I'm happy to learn new things every day. Yes he is right with respect to (significant coverage in the book) but I added more information that prove that This is a Primary Source so we can't use it for notability according to my knowledge, if I'm wrong, tell me? Charmk (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raptor_(programming_language)&oldid=905310254"