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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I will say that I got a little twinge deleting an article that was created in 2002. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Manifesto[edit]

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

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

No independent coverage located on a search. Everything from the bibliography is by the same authors so is not independent. Hits on GScholar & other searching are the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to D (data language specification); the book seems to mostly be notable as the origin of that language specification, and there is already significant overlap between the two articles. - IMSoP (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm not sure that subject is notable either - all the citations are again to the authors of the language. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are multiple languages which claim or aim to be implementations of the specification, and it has 37 articles linking to it (whereas The Third Manifesto only has 16, mostly the same ones). If it had a single author rather than two, I'd be fine with redirecting it all to a section on the article for that author, but I think it's worthy of covering somewhere. If it's lacking good references, that's as likely to be a sign that it should be improved as that it should be deleted. - IMSoP (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incoming links are not indicators of notability (and in any case, some 30-odd of those incoming links are merely transclusions of the navbox Template:Query languages, so that really means nothing notability-wise). Independent reliable sources that cover the topic in some detail are needed to indicate notability. In the case of the book, I was not able to find any, hence this deletion nomination.

In the case of the specification, it's a bit harder as single letters are basically impossible search terms. I tried skirting around the edge searching the authors' names and adding terms like "language" and "specification" but again mostly turned up sources by the authors, which are not independent and cannot support a claim to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia overcovers obscure computer topics that don't meet out own standards for inclusion. The fact that another non-notable topic exists does not refute Premeditated Chaos arguments for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2022 (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.