Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alma-0
- 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. The nominator withdrew, the AFD was properly closed and then reopened 3 days after the fact. The proper thing to do in cases like this is to renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)
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 isn't enough to establish notability for an academic project, and it doesn't have any other coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because nothing good ever came of a deletion spree. Ubernostrum (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my reasoning here Throwaway85 (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be that the single paper has "only" been cited 15 times, it has also been cited recently in a 2009 journal paper. Nevertheless, the current Alma-0 Wikipedia article should be improved by describing the features in more detail. --ShinNoNoir (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retract. I'm retracting this AfD for obvious reasons.... Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notice that the individual paper has not been cited 15 times, the website says that the citation count is the "cumulative total number of times all authored works by this author were cited by other works within ACM's bibliographic database". So, no, that paper written by the author is not enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid the non-admin closure and added a "delete" !vote. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2011 (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.
