Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Event Driven Language

Event Driven Language

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

No evidence that this programming language is notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of programming languages. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IBM Series/1. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event driven language was an important precurser to modern object oriented architecture. Hit the library at your local University's data center and you can find the appropriate operating manuals. Deleting or merging this article serves no purpose except to make it harder to analyze the history of this important and notable chapter of software development. I added 4 ref's, textbooks etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcwiki9 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This AfD is completely unwarranted. The article already has a merge proposal that suggested merging into IBM Series/1. The merge could have been performed without the trouble of an AfD. This toopic, while not suggesting to me that it has any great importance in computing due to the lack of results in Google Books and Scholar (although this may be due to a lack of knowledge in this area of computing), is undoubtly important in the context of the System/1, and the inclusion of its content in that article will aid understanding. Rilak (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ all the above: The merge tag was added after I nominated it for deletion [1], the nearest major university is 250 miles from where I live so I can't just pop over there and look this up, and simply claiming something is automatically or "undoubtedly" notable doesn't actually prove anything. If I look around I could also find an instruction manual for the specific model of chain saw I use, and without even going to a university at that, that doesn't prove anything as far as establishing notability. The new sources look pretty weak, especially the one identified as "unknown article." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]