Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Access query language

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. After three relists there is no consensus on whether this should be an independent article or some kind of redirect. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Access query 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. No references Imcdc (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible redirect to PIck OS but unclear to me if any value to that redirect. Might be better as "Access (quary language), the access being in capitals.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pick operating system. I don't think it's a likely search term, but at least the redirect will preserve the history visible to non-admins, in case anyone would ever find it useful. I don't see any sources online to suggest the topic meets WP:GNG, so deletion is a second choice. Though admittedly, the popularity of Microsoft Access makes it hard to separate the search result wheat from the chaff. Ajpolino (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Gallant, Bourdon added to article after my previous comment above; also noting previous comment of definition as permitted by copyright terms. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to the Bourdon article and can send to anyone upon request. It doesn't really provide any additional information to add to the article, and certainly nothing to establish notability. It has some nice info about the history of Pick operating system in case anyone is interested in working on that article. Ajpolino (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's a bit more about the query language at Lukaitis (2010), A Brief History of the Pick Environment in Australia. If we keep the article, I agree with Djm-leighpark's suggestion of moving to 'Access (query language)'. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Or perhaps 'ACCESS (query language)' is a better move target? I think I prefer the capitalised version, since this is mostly of historical interest. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per my comments above. It's clear from the history that the Pick system is highly notable and, with Pick/BASIC, as one of the two main work-achieving interfaces to the system, in an ideal world it seems to me that ACCESS would clearly be an important thing to have a good article on. There's one problem: per GNG, the references we actually have seem to be borderline (two not-so-great books and some passing mentions in articles; I found some further). In my view, the obvious importance of the topic justifies overcoming the doubt that the references are enough to furnish a decent article. Furthermore, the historians of past computer systems still appear to be providing useful coverage of Pick, and like COBOL the Pick system is actually still deployed, so if we can excuse my IAR violation of CRYSTALBALL, I do expect the referencing situation to improve. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pick operating system. The references since added fall far short of WP:HEYMANN-style improvement. They seem at best passing mentions. The Lukaitis article has all of one paragraph in eleven pages about the query language. There is no sign that this is a significant area of anyone's computer history research. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:27, 8 November 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.