This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.
The contents of the ObjVProlog page were merged into ObjVlisp. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2017-07-03)
@JohnCD:, thanks for undeleting this, but I have to question your decision to tag it with {{notability|products}}. I don't believe that "Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services" are relevant to this article, since as far as I am aware ObjVlisp was never a commercially available product, it was a university research project. As such, "notability guidelines for products and services" are inapplicable. I'd suggest the key notability criteria for academic research are discussion in publications respected in the particular academic discipline (such as journals or conference proceedings), including both papers directly discussing the research, and the number of times those papers are later cited. SJK (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that I am inclined to agree with this. If there is a set of notability guidelines for academic research projects and similar articles, it would be a bit more apropos than to judge the article based merely on the criteria used for commercial products. H.dryad (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The particular variety of "notability" tag is not that significant; the WP:General notability guideline is the criterion in any case. I have removed the tag as I think the article is now adequately referenced. JohnCD (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
