Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delimiterless input (2nd nomination)

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 delete. ✗plicit 07:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delimiterless input

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Clearly not a widespread term and fails WP:GNG since there is no available sourcing. A previous discussion was closed "no consensus", although in my opinion seemed to be leaning towards delete. Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I for one wasn't leaning. This is drivel, and will never be verified. And we've now been telling it to the world for more than fifteen years. It isn't some mystery terminology, and the argument is not, despite the previous closure, that we don't know it. It is that it just plain isn't true at all. I even gave sources in the prior discussion for what, rather, is true. My challenge from ten years ago, unanswered in all this time, stands. Show doco supporting this. You will not find any. Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced OR. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if there is no source, there should be no article. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly clear what's being described here, which is similar to the content we have at Computer_terminal#Character-oriented_terminal. The main issue then is the title which may well be some dated jargon. The puzzling thing is that the original author of the page seems to be still active but has not commented here or at the previous discussion. As they have considerable seniority, predating even Uncle G, it would be good to get their input.

Note also that another old-timer who commented in the previous discussion – Andy Dingley – has been mostly inactive for a year, having been blocked for no good reason. Tsk.

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, Wow. Did you forget a keep vote? If even you can't find an argument for keeping, it's a pretty clear endorsement this topic need to go... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, per WP:NAD, fails WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V, likely fails GNG given one hit per GBooks/GScholar, assuming it is not OR or a HOAX. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all I know there is a significant concept there, but the title of the article appears to be a neologism and that cannot be tolerated. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2021 (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.