Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Executive Systems Problem Oriented Language

Executive Systems Problem Oriented Language

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was dePRODed because someone baselessly claimed that the subject is notable. Remember that sourcing guides notability -- we do not have sources in the article to show this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Burroughs Large Systems#ESPOL and NEWP. Article is so stubby that the entirety can fit comfortably in the target article without running into WP:WEIGHT issues. DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into, and redirect to, another related article. Burroughs Large Systems#ESPOL and NEWP is an excellent choice. Remember when sourcing, that in the 1960s and 1970s, the community using a given processor architecture was often smaller than the number of posts in many subreddits. Many interesting, even important systems were poorly or not documented in publicly available sources. ESPOL may be too small a topic for a dedicated Wikipedia article, given current article requirements, but the ESPOL material should not be deleted. Let's try to avoid another needless harmful article deletion. Jerryobject (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find the policy or guideline for "fit comfortably". However, three ESPOL Reference Manuals does fit nicely under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOTMANUAL (redirect policy to "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal") that should be a consideration upon closing. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find the policy or guideline for "fit comfortably". It's called WP:ATD-M.

However, three ESPOL Reference Manuals does fit nicely under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NOTMANUAL This isn't a manual; it contains no instructions on how to do things. This is a short encyclopedic description of a programming language that can and should be merged into the broader article of Burroughs Large Systems. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]