The result was no consensus. at this point, it seems there is no consensus. If notability is not clearer in 3 or 4 months, a renomination would be appropriate DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a relatively new programming language. Can't tell the age. Can't tell notability of this, either. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
citation}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help). Not enough to pass
WP:GNG, but close. As to the age, the online
Obix programming language documentation has "Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011", so the language has apparently been under development for several years, but as recently as June 3, 2011, its designer
wrote: "Obix is still in beta version". --
Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
reply+Transwiki We can transwiki the page becuase the articles nobility isnt very high bu high. And it could work better in a new wiki. Or we just leave it where it is and let some more people edit it. Algamicagrat ( talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
citation}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help). Now the article contains (IMHO) multiple, independant, verifiable and reliable sources, as required by
Wikipedia:Notability, doesn't it?
Obligato17 (
talk) 05:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
replyThe result was no consensus. at this point, it seems there is no consensus. If notability is not clearer in 3 or 4 months, a renomination would be appropriate DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a relatively new programming language. Can't tell the age. Can't tell notability of this, either. -- Dennis The Tiger ( Rawr and stuff) 07:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
citation}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help). Not enough to pass
WP:GNG, but close. As to the age, the online
Obix programming language documentation has "Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011", so the language has apparently been under development for several years, but as recently as June 3, 2011, its designer
wrote: "Obix is still in beta version". --
Lambiam 14:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
reply+Transwiki We can transwiki the page becuase the articles nobility isnt very high bu high. And it could work better in a new wiki. Or we just leave it where it is and let some more people edit it. Algamicagrat ( talk) 13:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) reply
{{
citation}}
: |chapter=
ignored (
help). Now the article contains (IMHO) multiple, independant, verifiable and reliable sources, as required by
Wikipedia:Notability, doesn't it?
Obligato17 (
talk) 05:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
reply