Deletion of Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

Comment: same reasons as before -  wants a knowledgeable source, which takes out the Huber source.  Other editors appear to be arguing that Wang's close associates and even Cheng's papers constitute sources for the sake of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Plenty of valid, notability-establishing cites.  Wang's connection to Cheng is irrelevant; we're considering ''IEEE Spectrum'', not Wang.  The only time the author is the source is in a  situation.  We also need not rake source citation content over the coals for reasons to disqualify it, like speaking too positively of its topic, that are conjured out of nowhere rather than appearing in policy or guidelines; the question we're asking is whether it provides significant coverage, i.e. enough to provide a meaningful chunk of Wikipedia article content.  These conditions are sufficiently met
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SPS)

Comment: To establish notability,  and  ask for multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial sources.  I don't think they're there.  The requirement for independence eliminates the papers by Harry Cheng, the creator of Ch, plus those of http://iel.ucdavis.edu/publication/2007/CAEE.pdf Matt Campbell and http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MS.2006.27 Zhaoqing Wang, both of whom have co-authored papers with Harry Cheng.  (In addition, Cheng was the director of the UC Davis Integration Engineering Laboratory where Campbell was a master's candidate.)Two more of the sources are also not useful because they're not actually commenting on Ch.  Both the Glassborow and the Huber articles are actually book reviews of Cheng's textbook for teaching C.  Yes, it apparently comes with a CD containing Ch, but I don't think that's what they were reviewing.  I think they were a reviewing a book about how to teach C.The independent secondary sources we're left with are the http://replay.web.archive.org/20011116220556/http://www.byte.com/documents/s=1776/byt20011031s0002/1105_heller.html Heller, http://drdobbs.com/184401877?queryText=ChSDK Wilson and http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1049264 Gary Wang articles.  They're weak.The Heller article is a First Impression ''web-only'' column article, not featured review and it says so.  (Columnists have a lot of freedom to say anything they like; a featured review is one the editors stand behind.)  A First Impression is just that; it just came out and here's what it looks like, who knows if it's going anywhere.  Also, this was a ''web-only'' column, never in print.  From Byte_(magazine)#The_controversial_end_of_Byte|The controversial end of Byte, the big print magazine most of us remember ''"ceased publication with the July 1998 issue, laid off all the staff and shut down Byte's rather large product-testing lab ... In 1999, CMP revived Byte as a web-only publication."''  The Wilson article is similar; it's a weak column mention.  It made it into print, but in a much smaller circulation, special interest publication, the author isn't anywhere near as well-known as Heller and the column isn't actually about Ch.  It's ''"looking instead at the Open-RJ open-source library (http://www.openrj.org/ http://www.openrj.org/), along with its mapping to the Ch and C++.NET languages."''The Gary Wang article is the weakest of the bunch.  It's advertising being passed off as a legitimate review.  It cannot plausibly have been peer-reviewed.  Yes, it did appear in Spectrum but the whole point of asking for reliable sources should be more than just saying, okay, as long as the article appeared somewhere that usually exercises good editorial control, that's enough. This is an article, that ''http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1049264 if you simply read it'' cannot possibly be considered to be reliable and balanced.  Characteristic of purely promotional writing, it fails to identify even a single shortcoming or any possible way in which the product might be improved or any purpose for which it wouldn't be absolutely fabulous.  It's not surprising to see that SoftIntegration quotes Gary Wang in their http://www.softintegration.com/company/press/20011002.html press release ''predating'' the Spectrum article.  What is surprising is that Spectrum would allow this to be printed.When I take these very weak sources together with the aggressive history of spamming Wikipedia (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C_shell&action=historysubmit&diff=417462074&oldid=414889411 here and in the Ch_interpreter#External_links|spammy external links) and http://www.amazon.com/Engineers-Scientists-Interpretive-Approach-Companion/product-reviews/0077290461/ref=cm_cr_dp_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending Amazon with SPAs, the endless relitigating (we're now into the 4th week of debate on this page, prompting me to wonder if this what Spectrum also gave into!) and the unsavory canvassing in earlier rounds, I think the right answer is delete (but I respect consensus even when I'm on the wrong side of it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)