Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Block diagram 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A Block diagram Language

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability in question since 2008, no reasonalbe attempt to address this since then. BigGayAllison talk 07:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral - the list of literature on the subject is substantive - I think someone with relevant expertise needs to check these sources and provide in-line citations if they do contain references to it. Per WP:BEFORE, it would have been appropriate to do so before nominating the article for deletion. Claritas § 08:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hardware description language. Almost all papers listed are not in peer-reviewed literature, and the few that are, are either (co-)authored by the designers/implementors of ABL, or do not mention it, or both (for example the paper by Ayala-Rincón et al.); all together not enough to establish that this has an intrinsic interest that merits an encyclopedic article on its own. In my opinion the present article is not truly informative anyway. --Lambiam 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. References seem to provide quite a few papers and articles published in publications that are independent of the creators of the subject language.  Whether written by the creators or not, the fact that they have been accepted for publication by independent editors working for notable academic publishers (Springer-Verlag, Elsevier) suggests that the subject was considered noteworthy by these editors, who know their field better than I do. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.