Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flow Description Markup Language Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flow_Description_Markup_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 merge to List of XML markup languages#F. Invoking WP:SK#1, WP:SNOW, and for any lingering doubts WP:IAR here, nominator and all comments advocate merge, which is completed. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 19:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flow Description Markup Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable markup language, Google books returns mostly quotes from the wikipedia page. Google scholar has just one hit as part of a list. I couldn't find any samples of this language online. U2fanboi (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge—I'm seeing one passing reference in google scholar and one passing reference in google books. The dead link in the article doesn't exist in Wayback. Not enough out there to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Never occurred to me that there would be list of XML markup languages. Merging there is the better solution; !vote changed accordingly. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List_of_XML_markup_languages - the existing references make it verifiable. Diego (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List_of_XML_markup_languages per Diego. I couldn't find multiple RS needed for notability, but agree that this language is verifiable and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, is better preserved as a mention in the list than deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Agree with merge so I put an entry in the list, redirected the page and deleted the deletion suggestion. Hope I'm not breaching too many rules of wikiquette. U2fanboi (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.