Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conditional assembly 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 redirect to Assembly language. The content will be preserved in the page history in case anyone wants to merge anything anywhere. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Conditional assembly language

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Too narrow even in an IBM context, conflates conditional assembly with macros Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Assembly_language where the concept is mentioned. As evidenced by this old IBM 360 assembly tutorial, conditional assembly is an important part of macro assembly programming, but it is probably not independently notable from macro assembly. As a plausible search term that is verifiable, I think it is reasonable to redirect this topic to Assembly_language. -- 22:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Since conditional assembly statements are also used outside of macros, that section would need some expansion. Alternatively, the redirect could be to a new macro and conditional assembly article that included text from the section and also examples from several different macro assemblers. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Assembly_language. Even if the topic did meet GNG I believe it would be more appropriate as a component of a larger article. For the moment, that article is Assembly language, but I would have no objection to the creation of a new article as detailed by Chatul. Merge is an option as well, but I'm not confident the current content would fit within the context of the discussed target without significant edits, at which point it would be easier to create a new mention. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (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.