Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tool Integration Language (TIL)
- Tool Integration Language (TIL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very specialised modelling language. Article was deleted once for lack of notability. The reference now added does little to improve the situation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet general notability. Single-purpose account and conflict of interest potential. Seems the usual sad case of a poor new user not being familiar with guidelines. Article created on the first edit of Mattbiehl, who has only made edits on this article and one talking about it. The first author of the one reference is Matthias Biehl. Clearly the title does not comply with conventions (the trailing acronym in parens). An article on tool integration language might stand a better chance of survival. That is, an article on the general topic as indicated by the lower case title. It could, for example, cite the paper here from 20 years ago on the subject, and give others up to and including the 2011 one on similar subjects. We generally do not consider subjects of a single student paper as notable, but wait until at least one other independent source at least mentions it. Perhaps userfy if the editor is willing to come up to speed with policy? W Nowicki (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable Computer progamming (?) language. I'm sure it exists, just isn't notable enough for an article. --Madison-chan (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable enough for its own language. I would support W Nowicki's suggestion for a more creation of a more general article and inclusion of this specific instance within that. --Kvng (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)