Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slow programming

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slow programming

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

NN term, likely WP:NEOLOGISM. No RS sources. The term is not mentioned in the source given (which despite being Salon, was pulled from AlterNet), and Google search turns up Reddit, Facebook, and blogs. MSJapan (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slow movement (culture) or delete. It doesn't look like this really caught on in reliable sources. Like I said the last time this slow movement stuff came up at the AfD, I think we have way too many of these articles that have never adequately established notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fully unsourced and fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no reliable sourcing anywhere to even verify basic information, let alone establish notability. Reyk _YO! 11:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like an interesting concept, but I couldn't find any sources to support GNG. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is enough information to describe the terminology but nothing in reliable secondary sources so fails our notability guideline. We used to program like this 100% of the time in the '90s. DeVerm (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not convincing of its own convincing independent substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 12 July 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.