Deletion of PWCT

Comment: I was a bit surprised that this got relisted but looking at my !vote above, I realize I should have given a guidelines-based reason for deletion, rather than just complaining about the copy.  It's not fair to assume the patrolling admin will have read all the history through the previous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernova (programming language)|AfD/Supernova and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language)|AfD/PWCT discussions.{{User|Msfclipper}} is the author of the PWCT and Supernova programming languages and of the articles here on WP on those subjects.  Notability on Wikipedia requires reliable, independent, secondary sources actually about the subject.  Every one of those words means something particular here.  This has been explained in those previous AfDs.  What we got instead was a kind of citation spam, a huge volume of completely irrelevant citations to blog and discussion board posts.  These are called |questionable sources and it took time to check them all.  When Msfclipper made a copy PWCT article as the AfD closed in on PWCT (programming language) it felt like an evasion of the AfD process.For real.  There are no sources to support notability.  I looked
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:QS)

Comment: The overlapping AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language) was closed a few days ago with the verdict that the article's creator was, despite being able to point to seventy forum, blog and primary sources, unable to demonstrate that PWCT met . This copy of the article offers no better sources; in fact, it doesn't offer any
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSOFT)