" 

 == Pawn deletion == 
 Hello. You closed the pawn deletion discussion with delete citing lack of sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pawn_%28scripting_language%29 
 But I listed at least two WP:RELIABLE sources, and updated the article with them. And an editor previous voting for delete changed it's vote to keep after seeing that. All the delete votes were cast before I edited the original article with the new sources. There was no lack of sources (IMHO) nor consensus for deletion. Please review your decision.    
 *Are these the same sources you gave in the AFD where two very experienced editors still voted to delete afterwards?  '  
 ** That was in 2 April. After Neutrality voted delete I went again to search for more sources and posted them in 5 April. Piotrus aparently didn't even read any of that, as it said ""Self-published (creator's website) references only"". Then I went to update the article itself. After that Be..anyone changed his vote. The other two didn't apear again to say if they changed their opinion or not after that.    
 ***I didn't pick up on that - probably because your comment included  I included some of the sources I listed above in the discussion. What were the additional sources you referred to? I will review them and see if that should have changed the outcome.  '  
 **** I think you can see the history of the article. The main ones were the Dr. Dobbs article and the page in that book (that is a real mainstream printed book where it costs to them to add one extra page). And also the notable software/games that use/used it. In the deletion page I also listed lots of evidence that it is widely used by many groups unrelated to the language authors, as an informal pledge for notability, to show it is not a pet project or commercial spam.    
 **** Any update?    
 **I wouldn;t accept DrDobbs as a reliable source - from their 'about' page the articles in DDJ are often written by the readers of DDJ and the author of that article is not on their staff. I found a copy of the 1st edition of the book online and couldn't find a reference to the subject. Obviously its not the second edition, but if all you have is that it won't be enough.  ''''  
 *** Even if not written by their staff, it is revised and published by them, and they have proven themselves as a reliable source over the years. As for the book, you can find searching for Pawn on google books 
 *** And now a little rant: It is a programming language, not a politician. The pawn manual is probably the most reliable and extensive source on the language, being extended and revised for over a decade. And right behind are the wiki pages I linked on the forks, that were likely written by the fork developers itself and maybe with little corrections from the users. Of course they fail the general wikipedia guidelines for reliability as primary/self published/user generated, but common sense indicates that they are probably reliable for technical matters. Wikipedia kinda recognizes that in WP:SELFSOURCE. The reason for disallowing self published content is that ""Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field"". But someone who created a game engine using this language and supported it and it's relatively large user and developer base for years is not simply ""anyone"" anymore, even if he isn't a distinguished academic. 
 *** The problem here was mainly notability. Is it self promotional cruft that was never adopted by anyone besides their creators and thus would not merit a encyclopedic article? Or is it a language with maybe thousands of developers, recognized by github, that sparked not one, but two children, used by gamming modding comunities and WP:NO 	 LE games alike? A mainstream programming book could afford pay a page to feature it, but an article in wikipedia would make it an worse online encyclopedia? Yeah, the strictly WP:RELIABLE references are on the low side, but I think it is reasonable to argue that the existence of this article wouldn't make wikipedia worse, but better, especially after my edits to it. And I wasn't the only one thinking that way in the deletion discussion you closed by mistake.  ([[User talk:Caro