Deletion of MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)

Comment: This is a procedural keep as the spirit of process was violated in renominating four days after the close of first.  The  1st AfD had it's chance at the article. If sourcing is so important as a rationale to delete, it should have been included before.  Repeated nominations of an article are disruptive, and the existence of an article that may be, or may not be, sufficiently notable is infinitely less destructive to WP that violating process for some supposed immediate gain.  Also, it's inappropriate to delete articles that can be improved, per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: In dire need of some |reliable sources. None so far forthcoming
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: There really are no reliable sources for this.  Almost everything is material self-published by the creator of the article.  It fails , , and is mostly .  The author reached hard for sources, even at one point citing a mailing list on which it was mentioned a few times; McCulloch was trying to argue that it had some benefit to the XML/RDF community, and got a few responses.  (Although the article doesn't link to its sources, you can, in fact, find most of them on the web.) The language got short entries on long, comprehensive lists of AI tools.  I've been looking for more sources; I tried Google and Google Scholar, and the best I could find was a paper by McCulloch (editor who created the article) rejected by a regional AI conference in Florida. It's not even getting blog references.  This isn't new work; it's been around for years. As for the lecture notes cited, they're online.http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~jeffery/courses/monvis/lecture.html The reference to mKE is in a lecture about debugging tools for the Unicon language, and mKE is "the Largest Publically Available Unicon Program (50K lines)", and it's mentioned as something to practice debugging upon. The entire reference is three lines.  That's it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTE||WP:OR)

Comment: or '''Userfy''' - As it stands, the article does not have any independent reliable sources to show notability of this subject. Hoping it will eventually have some is |speculation. I have no objection to the article being moved to user space until it is improved, but it does not have a place in mainspace right now. The technicality re: the timing of this AfD is besides the point. The reason we normally avoid re-nominating so quick is to prevent railroading when someone doesn't get the results they wanted. I'm willing to  on the nom when he states he didn't know of the first AfD, and looking at that AfD it was a mess. If this AfD does not result in deleting or userfying, then I'd support waiting at least a month or two before any new AfD takes place, as this has generated a much more thorough discussion. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:AGF)

Comment: I hadn't noticed (until it was pointed out on the talk page) that I had not explicitly !voted to delete, so consider this to be a formal !vote. Based on the lack of genuine, '''independent''' sources, I do not believe that this programming language meets the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Under |Notability, the fifth bulleted point in the "general guideline" section states ''"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.'' There is precious little here that meets that. All four references have nothing to do directly with the subject of the article, but rather with concepts that are asserted (by the author) to be represented in the language. There is no independent coverage of the language itself, which is the benchline for verifiability and notability. Without that, it is simply an interesting collection of Original Research, which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Perhaps  would have been the appropriate venue, rather than a new nomination.  However, a new AfD nomination giving a reason not discussed in the previous AfDs is ''never'' improper, even if the result had been '''keep''', and it had closed yesterday.  (The question of whether the lack of sources ''was'' discussed in the previous AfD is open.  I saw a reference there, but it seems to have been added after the AfD closed.)  &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)