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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obyx[edit]

Obyx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very new programming language; no indication of notability yet: can't find any coverage in secondary sources. This may need to be userfied and replaced if and when it receives some third-party attention. PROD was removed by the author, so bringing to AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obyx trademark. [1]. This (along with the website) should suffice to address any charge regarding questions of Verifiability. As for notability as an argument, "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out." I am not really willing to go through all of this again. Take it that I (the author) will personally be happy to mark the article for deletion if it remains of little or no relevance to the community after time. (Disclaimer. I am an inclusionist, not a deletionist. But that does not make me wrong. I just share a different view to deletionists. I believe that WP should not be ruled by deletionism.)
As remarked upon before, novelty itself does not indicate notability, or the lack of it. (20040302 (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Can you make an actual policy-based argument for deletion? Unfortunately record of their trademark's registration and their personal website doesn't establish notability and it's not sufficient to verify the claims made in the article; we need reliable secondary sources and there needs to be significant coverage of the subject in such sources in order for this to qualify for inclusion. It's not a matter of waiting and seeing if it's notable in future; wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the subjects of articles need to be notable now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One purpose of WP:RS is to "avoid plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles.' WP:RS isn't a goal in itself, and isn't one of the WP:5P, except for the purposes just stated. As I point out above, there is little doubt that ( given the code base, the website, the trademarks and so on ) the claims being made by the article in question aren't unverifiable. The purpose of providing trademarks, etc. was not to demonstrate WP:NOT but to demonstrate WP:V so that the purpose of WP:RS is mitigated regarding issues of verifiability.
IIRC, the other usage of WP:RS is as a subsidiary to the WP:NOT criteria, and I now believe that this is the sole complaint that you are raising, and that you have not been concerned about establishing WP:V.
I agree that WP is no crystal ball, but also I agree with WP:FAILN when it says that For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort., I guess that as the defender of the article, it is my task to provide notability. I felt that a seven day timespan was too unforgiving, as, though there appears to be little on the internet regarding Obyx outside of several websites that use it, and it's own codebase, the search for third party reliable sources do not begin and end with Google, regardless of what sort of hegemony one may attribute it. I have only asked for time. (20040302 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Joe appears to consider that information begins and ends with the Internet. How the world has changed since 1990. (20040302 (talk))
It seems vanishingly unlikely that a new programming language is going to generate significant coverage off the internet before it becomes mentioned in media on the internet; and I don't see you providing any reliable sources demonstrating notability either on or off the internet, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that books are generally reviewed or at least sold online, so it's reasonable to expect a notable book on the subject to be found in an online search. Has an (offline) newspaper or magazine covered the subject, then? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof that there is offline sources? That is my point. Joe Chill (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And my point was, and remains, that it may take more than seven days to gather evidence for offline sources. I have contacted the organisation. If there are none, I will userfy the article. I understand the principles of notability although I remain concerned that the arguments for ensuring notability in the case of novelty are, in my opinion, extremely weak. It certainly has nothing to do with space. For every word of any article, how many words are spent discussing the merits/demerits thereof? (20040302 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2010 (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.
More