Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CorVision

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 keep. Deizio talk 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CorVision

Seems to fail WP:SOFTWARE. 421 GHits for "CorVision Cortex", many of them business directories. Duja 14:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• keep CorVision is very much a legacy package only used by a very small number of business, any independent publications, articles etc will have long been out of print and I have not been able to find anything notable on Google. I agree that CorVision is probably of little importance in modern software development but I believe it is of historical relevance as an important 4GL package. With this on mind it should probably be cleaned up to only include the historical facts about the package. sdcoulson
• Weak keep Seems to be moderately notable, at least passing WP:SOFTWARE. For software popular in the 70s and 80s, I was surprised to find as much about it as I did, actually. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Andrew Lenahan. While parts of this need to be rewritten for encyclopedic tone and greater specificity, it seems largely of historical rather than commercial interest now. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I didn't see multiple external references in the entry, which leads me to question the assertion that it passes WP:SOFTWARE. It is also in need of cleanup. - Tewfik^Talk 05:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Keitei (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - utterly fails WP:SOFTWARE for not having multiple non-trivial publications written about it. Valrith 20:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The publications exist, they just need to be cited. Also, Keep per Andrew Lenahan. Vectro 16:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notability standards have to take into account the nature of the topic in question. When it comes to legacy software, we need to be more relaxed in our evidence -- there is unlikely to be much WWW info on these languages, because by the time the WWW came along they were mostly gone. But that does not mean that they are unnotable (from a historical perspective), if there are significant mentions in older literature (e.g. trade magazines, journals). Unfortunately, looking up those old magazines would be quite an effort; so I would suggest the answer is to err on the side of keep. --SJK 20:31, 18 October 2006 (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.