Talk:Executive Systems Problem Oriented Language

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2025. The result of the discussion was merge.

This page was proposed for deletion by HyperAccelerated (talk · contribs) on 7 February 2025.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Primary reference

I don't think there's a "primary" here. Peter Flass (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't - ESPOL is now a disambiguation page, pointing to pages for all three entities with the acronym "ESPOL". Guy Harris (talk)

ESPOL should not be deleted

Although replaced by NEWP, ESPOL is of historical significance in the Burroughs B5000 world. As I wrote for NEWP:

I don't know who this Mr HyperAccelerated (MR HA) is, it seems they have nothing to there name on WP apart from this deletion notification. Thus MR HA is posting this under the guise of anonymity, which gives it less credence.

I thus suspect industry shenanigans. While the reason given (WP:GNG) is there is little findable online material apart from at Unisys (a full manual available), that is only a weak test, and certainly DOES NOT apply here.

Let's use this test: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

Yes, NEWP has a reliable source at Unisys. Secondly this article has been worked on by multiple people for nearly 20 years. This article is also referenced from other WP articles, so is one of a related collection of articles. While NEWP is a specialist area, it is significant in the context of those other articles for which there are plenty of external material since the B5000 and descendants are very significant machines in this industry.

It may be that Mr HA has no familiarity with this subject so it might seem irrelevant to him, or that Mr HA has some industry axe to grind or works for some competitive concern. I find the whole 'flag for deletion' suggestion here nonsense in one way or another. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]