Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantom (programming language)
So the sources as presently composed do not seem to support inclusion requirements for verifiability, reliability, notability,etc. That said, there seems to be at least 1 academic paper that may discuss it in more than passing (for those with academic access, it's behind the ACM paywall). There are also three articles about it that I would consider at the very least editorially independent, if not notable themselves. While I would never hold the software category overall to this standard, there does appear to be a book about it coming out, which could settle the debate. Overall, it's not a strong case, and very possibly a case of .  --Special:Contributions/69.204.153.39|69.204.153.39
— [[User talk:69.204.153.39|talk]]), 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:TOOSOON (Wikipedia:Too soon)