Deletion of Number validation in VB 6

Comment: When I first saw this, my eyes glazed over.  There are just 11 or 12 concepts for the whole article.  But there are 27 citations, 15 sources, 7 further readings, and a 6 by 6 summary table.  This brings to mind , except it is done much more elegantly than most |spammers.  The article does not contain a |more in-depth treatment than the sources (''History of IsNull'' anyone?), nor is the information presented in a |new way, nor is it any more convenient than anything else published.  It is guilty of , except no one has written that guideline—which is probably a legitimate function of an encyclopedia anyway.  The existence of the article seems ''wrong'' somehow.  It could be saved by having a purpose:  more depth, better context, or some contrast to something related.  It is effectively one big  section
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:LINKFARM||WP:SPAM||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:REHASH||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: The applicable policies are probably  and OTHOWTO point 4. On the face of it, the subject matter has the multiple non-trivial references satisfying notability. The article presents as information rather than as "textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples" and so good argument can be made that it satisfies the NOTHOWTO advice. And though I can kinda see reasons for not wanting to dissect in minute detail on wikipedia every software platform, I'm persuaded by NOTHOWTO's "Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to ''inform'' rather than to ''instruct'', may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article", the quality of the subject article, and the fact that it discusses the function in the context of a range of platforms. I suspect, however, that other non-microsoft platforms have ''is functions'' and thus that we're seeing only a subset of the information one might expect to inhabit the is function namespace
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTHOWTO)

Comment: The topic passes Wikipedia:Notability and does not violate any policies or guidelines. Proponents of deletion primarily cite the policy .  states ''inter alia'' that "Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article." This rationale was applicable when http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&oldid=408597771 the article was first nominated for deletion. The remarkable rescue performed by {{user|Jonathan de Boyne Pollard}} firmly places the article in the category of informing. Though some sentences in the article instruct, this can be addressed through editing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTHOWTO)