Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Met English

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 12:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Met English

[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)

No sourcing found. WP:BEFORE involving GBooks turned up only false positives using the phrase "met English" in other contexts, even with "MetLife" and "programming" added. Prod by Jax 0677 contested without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Had a pretty a pretty productive search on GBooks including finding pointers to a court case involving the language(!)[1] and a paper[2] which goes pretty in depth on its use and operation. Artw (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article remains slight would also accept and an appropraite list of business computing languages exist would also accept a merge there. Not seeing a candidate that quite fits the bill. Artw (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment you appear to have removed your own Prod, what’s up with that? Artw (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article had already been prodded by Jax 0677, which I did not realize until after I had applied my own prod. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the clarification! Artw (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's a couple of things I found. [3], [4] This pre-dated the internet, makes searching difficult. Jacona (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First one might just be a reflection back of Wikipedia, unfortunately. Second is pretty slight. Artw (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This shows it in use up through the 90s but is not really usable. Artw (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have heard of this, and suspect it has some mentions in old textbooks somewhere, but I can’t find any significant coverage. I actually know a current day programmer at MetLife, but they are on different platforms and arrived far too late to use this code. While it’s possible a mention of this may belong in a history of programming somewhere, I don’t think it deserves a stand alone article. Jacona (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete: I couldn't find any mention in Google Scholar. Google Books lists a bunch of things that I don't think are coverage of the topic in question. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2022 (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.