Deletion of Mythryl

Comment: ndash; Rather than accusing someone of trolling it would be of greater benefit to establish notability for the article.  As it stands the article lacks "non-trivial" |reliable sources.  A quick glance of GHits and GNEWS offers no independent, | verifiable |reliable sources. Sergey Shandar you may or may not be right that Christopher has not done little research on the language, but you offer no support to validate the article's notability.  Vorov2 you are right that obscurity when applied by an individual is not a reason for article deletion; however, overall obscurity is.  Again, what would be productive would be the application of "non-trivial", | verifiable |reliable sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: I'm proposing this language for deletion not because it is obscure, but because there are no reliable sources that cover it. Anyone can self-publish a book, so "having a book" in and of itself does not establish notability (see ). This book has never been cited, as far as I can tell. It doesn't have a well-known publisher. It's not even exclusively about Mythryl. Why would this be a reliable source
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RELY)

Comment: ndash; Non-notable programming language lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance.  In spite of community support, no one has been able (or willing) to provide | reliable sources for the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)