Deletion of AUX (AUdio syntaX)

Comment: The only source we have on this is primary and has been cited only four times in Google scholar. Two of those four are papers authored or co-authored by Kwon, the creator of this language; one is a bachelor's thesis supervised by Kwon, and the remaining one is by a co-author of Kwon. Additionally, at least two of the four (including the one not directly involving Kwon) don't mention AUX itself, but rather mention (very briefly) the Psycon software package coming from the same reference. Re my suggestion mentioned above about publications by multiple independent groups: this is my interpretation of 's "multiple sources are generally expected" as it applies in this case. Additionally, formal languages such as this one can be notable by other means than through academic publications and citations, but we have no evidence of this in this case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Can't find any sources independent of the author. Academic papers need decent citation counts to be significant. Any random person can write an academic paper, they don't grant notability by themselves.  even states that google scholar (and many other paper search sites) lists a large number of papers that aren't in peer reviewed journals. &#8213;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)

Comment: minor" and "special purpose" are not valid reasons for deletion. Also does  now ignore peer review in reputable journals in favour of citation counting.  News to me. Explains our extensive Justin Bieber coverage though
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: In addition to the sources David Eppstein mentions, there is also an announcement of the software in https://books.google.com/books?id=T_ujBww4k7AC&pg=PA1111&lpg=PA1111&dq=Psycon+software+psychoacoustics&source=bl&ots=Gx64ciEwtJ&sig=cpOWgQZdQnKKuagTVCuCBFfU-YI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RXY4VYGJHsnxoATMsIA4&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=Psycon%20software%20psychoacoustics&f=false a book, but this is again primary and little more than a press announcement. I concur with David, there are no in depth secondary reliable sources discussing this software and barely any secondary citations (those, mostly in the context of Psycon). The software thus both fails  and the software specific essay . Perhaps the language will catch on at some point and secondary reliable sources will develop. But until then, there are no independent sources with which to write an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NSOFT)