Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtScript

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) SSTflyer 13:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AtScript[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability: article about a proposed programming language for a specific JavaScript framework that (proposal) lasted for a few month and (language) never happened Dchestnykh (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. –Be..anyone 💩 08:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAVOTE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this suggests better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I searched for coverage and found: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. None of the other !votes here seem to show any evidence of looking for coverage, and no attempt at an evidence/policy-based argument to back up their opinions. --Michig (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, per some of the sources I was able to access posted by Michig above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very lazy Google search picks up no shortage of coverage spanning some time. Michig posted some. I found an extra one in French. I've done some improvements to the article to include material from these sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the number of reliable sources identified above as well as the improvement to the article so that WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2016 (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.