Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PROSE modeling 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. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 09:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PROSE modeling language

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly intelligible and largely promotional article with lots of OR. Many references, but the relevant ones are to works with just a handful of citations and/or self-citations to the article author's papers and his self-published book that predicts a kind of scientific revolution if only "holistic modeling" were to gain ground in software engineering. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The following was left on the talk page, I've copied it here. Rwessel (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of modifying the PROSE modeling langauge page to conform to Wikipedia policy. I intend to delete any promotional flavor and links to the MetaCalculus website. I will also attempt to make the article less cryptic and easier to understand. Beartham (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - I'll give some latitude for online referencing of a 1970s technology. I am getting a lot of search hits which gives me a good impression of notability. The quality of the article is not a reason to delete but if the nom and other reviewers are truly offended by its presence in mainspace, perhaps it can be moved to WP:AFC. ~KvnG 18:41, 8 February 2014 (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.