| Revision as of 12:52, 20 February 2011 editLambiam (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers63,712 edits →Alma-0: remark← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:55, 20 February 2011 edit undoEnric Naval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits →Alma-0: withdrew because of hate mailNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| *:Nominator of that AfD withdrew after procedural objections, which were the basis of most Keep !votes. Then we had a non-admin closure, followed by a non-admin re-opening, followed by an admin closure explicitly stating that ''the proper thing to do in cases like this is to renominate''. It is a bit strange then to object against this renomination on procedural grounds. --] 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | *:Nominator of that AfD withdrew after procedural objections, which were the basis of most Keep !votes. Then we had a non-admin closure, followed by a non-admin re-opening, followed by an admin closure explicitly stating that ''the proper thing to do in cases like this is to renominate''. It is a bit strange then to object against this renomination on procedural grounds. --] 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' - Can't find any significant sources about it, other than forums, how-tos or promotional stuff. Also, it should be noted that the previous nominator's "withdrawal" was not almost definitely not an endorsement of the article. The fact that the previous nominator withdrew, and consequently that this is back at AfD, should have no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. ] 11:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' - Can't find any significant sources about it, other than forums, how-tos or promotional stuff. Also, it should be noted that the previous nominator's "withdrawal" was not almost definitely not an endorsement of the article. The fact that the previous nominator withdrew, and consequently that this is back at AfD, should have no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. ] 11:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :*The nominator withdrew all his nominations because he got a lot of hate mail and nasty comments on the internet . --] (]) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:55, 20 February 2011
Alma-0
AfDs for this article:- Alma-0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(I tried to re-open the last AfD, but I was told to open a new one) This language doesn't meet the general notability guideline. It is an academic language, with only one cited-paper, according to the ACM digital library. Even then, one paper with 15 citations, 3 of them from the author himself, isn't enough to establish notability for an academic project, and it doesn't have any other coverage. Even although it was created in 2004, it appears in no newspapers, no magazines, no books, and it only has one paper that has been cited. Enric Naval (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep or Procedural SpeedyKeep This article just went through AfD three days ago. The result was unanimous, with the nominator withdrawing the nomination. I don't know why the admin changed the result from "SpeedyKeep" to "No consensus". I think that this nomination fails WP:BURO, including the procedural irregularity of modifying the previous AfD, marked twice in red, "Please do not modify it." Unscintillating (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it went through a previous AFD, the nominator withdrew and the AFD was properly closed as "nomination withdrawn. Eric Naval then reopened it 3 days later and added a "delete" !vote so I couldn't have closed it as "nomination withdrawn". Technically you can't do that if there are outstanding delete !votes. Even if the original close stuck, a close of "nomination withdrawn" does not bar a speedy renomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - as above, shouldn't nominate again so quickly after another AfD. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nominator of that AfD withdrew after procedural objections, which were the basis of most Keep !votes. Then we had a non-admin closure, followed by a non-admin re-opening, followed by an admin closure explicitly stating that the proper thing to do in cases like this is to renominate. It is a bit strange then to object against this renomination on procedural grounds. --Lambiam 12:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Can't find any significant sources about it, other than forums, how-tos or promotional stuff. Also, it should be noted that the previous nominator's "withdrawal" was not almost definitely not an endorsement of the article. The fact that the previous nominator withdrew, and consequently that this is back at AfD, should have no bearing on the discussion whatsoever. Ravendrop 11:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- The nominator withdrew all his nominations because he got a lot of hate mail and nasty comments on the internet . --Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)