Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NEWP

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=NEWP}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=NEWP}})

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. This was dePRODed without sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show how the subject meets WP: GNG -- do not use buzzwords like "influential" and "significant" without giving sources to back up your claims. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Burroughs MCP. Could not find much in the way of secondary sources unlike ESPOL, and what does exist just [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Audit_and_Control_of_Systems_Software/tUNPAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22newp%22 describes it in the context of MCP] and how it was used to write it. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :NEWP is the replacement for ESPOL. WP:GNG is just a weak reason for deleting really irrelevant articles. NEWP is not irrelevant. Ian.joyner (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know who this Mr HyperAccelerated (MR HA) is, it seems they have nothing to there name on WP apart from this deletion notification. Thus MR HA is posting this under the guise of anonymity, which gives it less credence.

:I thus suspect industry shenanigans. While the reason given (WP:GNG) is there is little findable online material apart from at Unisys (a full manual available), that is only a weak test, and certainly DOES NOT apply here.

:Let's use this test: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

:Yes, NEWP has a reliable source at Unisys. Secondly this article has been worked on by multiple people for nearly 20 years. This article is also referenced from other WP articles, so is one of a related collection of articles. While NEWP is a specialist area, it is significant in the context of those other articles for which there are plenty of external material since the B5000 and descendants are very significant machines in this industry.

:It may be that Mr HA has no familiarity with this subject so it might seem irrelevant to him, or that Mr HA has some industry axe to grind or works for some competitive concern. I find the whole 'flag for deletion' suggestion here nonsense in one way or another. Ian.joyner (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::This is (roughly) a crosspost of a discussion this user opened on the article's Talk page (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NEWP#DO_NOT_DELETE_THE_NEWP_ENTRY here]). Unisys is the company that made this language, so their manuals can't be used to establish notability. I won't say too much about the WP: ADHOMs that attempt to attack my credibility, other than that if this user seriously believes that I have a conflict of interest, the proper venue to litigate that discussion is at WP: COIN, not here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::As I have already said, questioning your credibility, where you have come from, or your motives to launch this attack on a perfectly legitimate article is not actually ad hominem.

:::As for crossposting, WP is not at all clear as to where to respond to this scurrilous deletion request that seems to come from nowhere.

:::I'm not a WP lawyer (as you seem to be), I just edit and make positive contributions, not a negative attempt to delete the work of others who have given their time to provide this legitimate information. Ian.joyner (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether there is sufficient sourcing to make an article about NEWP. This is not Wikilawyering; this is how AfDs work. If you’re here to air personal grievances or vendettas, I have no business with you. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for that reply. It proves that you have come here to air your own personal grievances or vendettas. You are spinning on to me what you are indulging in. That is why I questioned the motives behind this move to delete a perfectly relevant article and sub article to other articles, saving them from being too long.

:::::If anyone should have grievances towards Burroughs/Unisys, it should be me for the way I was treated by career-furthering management. But I put that history behind me, because it is good and RELEVANT technology, especially showing how structured programming can be used at all levels with no assembler.

:::::I'm suggesting that Wikipedia have a very good look into the motives behind the suggestion to delete NEWP. Since I can't find any other activity from this nameless and anonymous person, that calls further into consideration the motives. Ian.joyner (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Delete: There seems to be absolutely no source that satisfy GNG—none that are Secondary-ly published by reliable sources, thus we need not even evaluate whether it only has trivial coverage. GNG is not a "weak test" at all. It is the standard for whether an article can be included, otherwise articles have a strong likelihood to be biased (due to only using WP:Primary sources, as we define the term) or false.
I'm surprised that Help:My article got nominated for deletion! doesn't mention the Secondary aspect yet, and I've now added a mention. In any case, one should take note of the notice on the top of that page stating it is not a policy or guideline—but merely a summary—and Wikipedia:Notability's status as a guideline. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hello Aaron. Yes WP:GNG is a weak test. It is only a symptom to show possibly irrelevant articles. However, this test does not apply to NEWP. Let's rather apply the test of relevance, that this article has been worked on by several people, it is a sub article to other WP articles.

::NEWP is the OS language used by a very significant vendor that has had profound effect on this industry showing that all system software can be written in structured languages.

::NEWP in fact sets the standard for that. It seems that Rust has copied the idea of having unsafe regions. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::It would be a great mistake and do the industry and WP a disservice to delete this article, and maybe other articles that fail one test. Not everything of relevance will be referenced online. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::It is not "only a symptom" as it is a guideline that does not say it is a weak test, period. There is no test of relevance. These are not just "legal" terms or politics; these are collections of the wisdom and consensus of Wikipedia editors since 2001 on how to create quality and encyclopedic content. By refusing to read such pages, you would be going against the agreement of thousands of editors just like you—our core policy and tenet, WP:Consensus. Plus, the knowledge of this software is still up there in this company's excellent brochures; it's just that completely trusting a company's words on how amazing their product is would be a great disservice to encyclopedic reliability. Anyone can create a brochure and claim they verified it to be accurate to its subject, and it would take too much effort to manually verify every such claim. I will not be replying further if you don't address the notability of this article based on the GNG criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::“It is not "only a symptom" as it is a guideline that does not say it is a weak test, period.”

::::Don’t be so dogmatic with “period”. Notice in the table on sources suited, the third column for “No or few suitable sources cited” says “Likely not notable”. Likely means it is not an absolute.

::::There are other criteria for notable. As I have noted, NEWP is the evolution of ESPOL, and the significance is that this was the language used to write the first OS exclusively in high-level syntax. It is now notable as the only OS/language requiring absolutely NO assembler. It is also notable as the first major OS that was open source. Because of ESPOL/NEWP customers could read the MCP OS source and even submit their own extensions. One such was BATS, the Burroughs Automated Tape System from New Zealand.

::::Other systems have inherited from that. That in itself is historically significant.

::::Note that under GNG, it is also said “"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.”

::::The cited manuals are not advertising, press releases, autobiographies, but technical manuals. This explains the decisions behind NEWP.

::::“in this company's excellent brochures; it's just that completely trusting a company's words on how amazing their product is would be a great disservice to encyclopedic reliability.”

::::NEWP is not mentioned in brochures. They do NOT hype NEWP. Removing NEWP is absolutely a disservice to encyclopaedic reliability and completeness.

::::The lack of wide coverage is not an absolute measure of irrelevance.

::::NEWP is a technically significant language.

::::I find the attempt to remove the NEWP article, along with ESPOL, Elliot ALGOL, ALGOL W, are all frivolous or maybe more sinister attempts to obliterate very significant bits of history, for what motive, I can’t exactly say, but it certainly does not look good. Perhaps it is at the very least that someone wants to look like they have had influence over Wikipedia, but not contributing to it in a positive way.

::::Removing these articles will indeed reflect poorly on the ad hoc “anyone with an inane pseudonym can be a Wikipedia editor” procedures.

::::“There is no test of relevance.”

::::You should read more carefully. I did read that significant contributions by several people to an entry counts as relevance. This article has been on WP for 20 years with notable and careful edits. It is not an article that has been placed on Wikipedia for frivolous purposes of for pushing any particular barrows, which it seems are the spirit of the guidelines.

::::But it seems that the suggestion to delete this and similar articles are an attempt to push a barrow. Ian.joyner (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't know what most of these Wikipedia legal terms mean. All I know is I and others come here to make a positive contribution to WP, and I don't want to get caught up in these negative political arguments.

:Frankly, this is becoming the 'enshittification' of WP where bully boys win out, just like on other social media.

:The rules and tests of WP should be to combat that, not to be used as an excuse for it. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Admin comment I have p-blocked Ian.joyner from this badge for bludgeoning and disruption. Star Mississippi 03:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Redirect to ALGOL#ALGOL_implementations (preferred) or Burroughs MCP with a link to the other. This isn't any official standard of notability but there are no mentions of NEWP or New Executive Programing Language in the Jargon File (compared to at least 20 for ALGOL) Moritoriko (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.