Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROIV

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Daniel (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROIV

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

PROIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not my area, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N. Takes a while to look past the clear promotion, but even then, I couldn't find the coverage or significance needed. No obvious WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years - hopefully we can now get this answered, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Product with a notably long lifespan, a code generator with integrated database touted as a 4GL initially and still going and rebranded as a low code generator. Many early advertisements in computerworld and then then computerworld actually gets the founder to speak to computerworld about how successful the advertisement campaign had been and how many quality leads it has generated. We do need to present some references here so starting with the ICE(GB).[1]Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC) We'll continue with an actuary ... my banter is the only good actuary is a failed actuary ... though I'm very well aware there's exceptions![2] Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ICE(GB), ed. (1988). Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers: Design and construction. Part 1. Vol. 84. United Kingdom: Institution of Civil Engineers. p. 168.
  2. ^ Harsant, John (31 October 1989). The construction of Computer Systems and the use of Fourth Generation Langages (PDF). Staple Inn Actuarial Society.
  • Userfy/Draftify: Problematic article for a long time, but might have some promise. I would propose to userfy/draftify and incubate it from there to a full-fledged article. Pyrite Pro (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Pyrite Pro Object userify/draftify unless you are committing to sorting it out. I've already cleared a fair bit of the advert stuff since nom. I presume you believe its notable from your comment and AfD in not cleanup. Draftify is typically a way of delete unless properly stewarded. I suggests closer either deletes or keep. In general draftify is only really approrpriate at AfD for new articles when the author is about and has moved inappropriately to mainspace. In general if an articles deleted then simply request a refund to draft if you'd like to work on it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PROIV&oldid=1042312385"