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. Consensus is that there are not enough reliable independent sources to write this article. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROIV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Last AfD had very low participation and was closed as no consensus. After 12 years in CAT:NN, I am really hoping we can get this resolved. It doesn't seem to have the significance or coverage to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Luckily I just held my breath from an outburst that would have resulted in a further significant block. Perhaps indeed this was a deliberate WP:SEALION attempt, though I assume good faith it is not. The previous nomination, opened 14:12, 9 August 2021, was closed 09:22, 4 September 2021 by Daniel, some 15 hours prior to this nomination. Oh WP:BEFORE, is this nomination serious? I a shall arise and return to the battle of Spencer Dock possibly moving on to the Battle of Newcomen. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC) (striking Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

• Full disclosure, I am here because this was linked from a now-redacted RfA question, but I don't think it influenced my view, so I can participate fairly. At first I fully intended to advocate for deletion, but I think there may actually be a kernel of notability here based on the sources in the first AfD—one crucial point is that the subject is referred to as "PRO-IV" in much of its coverage (which sometimes OCRs to "PRO-1V"), which led me to miss the mentions of it. The actuarial paper provides some critical assessment by an apparently independent author comparing the subject to relational database engines à la Oracle. I can't find a way to access the ICE source and I'm curious what it has to say. But the article itself is in an awful state, borderline G11, and needs to be rewritten to clearly communicate what these sources are saying. The two sources in the article are useless for notability (material published by the product's developers, a press release). I don't think it's quite at the level of a WP:TNT, but would be fine with such an outcome. — The Earwig (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sellers, JMS; France, KG; Zytynski, M; Robinson, CR (1988-02-01). "Application of database management systems. Informal discussion". Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 1. 84 (1): 167–170. doi:10.1680/iicep.1988.159. Mr. France presented a case study... [T]wo systems would be custom developed using a fourth generation language (4GL) known as PRO-IV. This language allowed programmers to ignore many of the technical aspects of data handling as it incorporates a sophisticated DBMS. The language gives substantial flexibility to accommodate changes and provides a wide range of facilities to reduce programming costs. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As with The Earwig above, I was drawn here by the attempt to canvass on an RfA. Similarly to them, I was up for seeking deletion, although based on my personal reasoning that it's often much better to tear up a bad article and start again than it is to try to reform it. There's a whole other discussion about how creating new articles gets more kudos on here than reforming bad old ones, but this isn't the time or place. However, again, like The Earwig, I think it just scrapes in under the line of WP:N - it's a very, very close scrape, but it's there. The article does need a root-and-branch rewrite, and might even benefit from being reduced to a stub of just a few cited paragraphs. So, whilst I wouldn't be heartbroken if it was deleted, I also wouldn't care if it was kept. To the closing admin: I'm so sorry. ◦ Trey Maturin 18:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There isn't significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to establish notability let alone write an article that isn't primary-sourced throughout.

  Of the two sources in the article, one is an incidental mention in a developer's press release ("The development team has been selected from the cream of PRO-IV developers"), the other a list of compatible software published by PROIV itself. Of the two additional sources produced in the previous nomination, one is the passing mention of PROIV as a software component quoted above, the other [the "actuarial paper" linked above] a charming but idiosyncratic comparison of fourth generation languages ("I list the three approaches in order: ... 1. COBOL CODE GENERATORS. I have no direct experience of Cobol Code Generators, because I am not familiar with Cobol and have decided not to spend time on it."). Other sources merely list the name in connection with other, similar software [1] [2].

  There are no PROIV instruction books [3], it's not taught in schools, and no reliable sources suggest that it's either technically or historically significant. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE, and WP:NPRODUCT. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It looks like there are a few independent reviews of the product in computer magazines if one searches in google books; although mainly hits were adds. Here are a few [4], [5].4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source is relevant. The first describes an application written in the PRO-IV language by a different company; PRO-IV is mentioned in passing (). The second describes a word processing program written for Commodore computers; completely non-topical. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. It was clearly a product in wide use in 80s and 90s just per the large amount of advertisements I found extending over a decade in a BEFORE search. This is one of those things that should be notable but isn't. With the lack of independent sources there is really no strong argument for keeping it.4meter4 (talk) 17:48, 13 September 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.