Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureBasic

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The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PureBasic

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

unremarkable comercial programming language implementation. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Google webserarch on the topic brings up manufacturer's website and forums plus some self published blogs. Google news brings up no hits and Google books brings up a single book on the topic. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go away, RadioFan. Your reasons for deletion are NOT valid. I can give photos of PureBasic on published magazines and newspaper articles to show its significant coverage, but you'd probably just brush them off as "original research". If you're going to delete this well-established BASIC language, then all other minor BASIC languages must also be deleted. Stop trying to do this, as we're always watching and will stop any vandalism attempt to delete the article. WPWatcher (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are articles in magazines and newspapers about the language, please add citations to the Wikipedia article referencing them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to delete anything, I'm not an admin. We are going to discuss whether or not this article meets notability guidelines and we are going to do it in a mature, calm way. Take the advice of others and provide reliable sources and this will all be settled. Also please dont remove the AFD notice from the article, it wont stop this discussion from taking place and is considered vandalism. Also, limit your comments to the discussion here, please do not make comments within the nomination or others comments. It's considered bad form at best and refactoring others comments at worst.--RadioFan (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, explain why it's STILL considered for deletion when we've added cites and mentions in published articles? You seem to have some sort of personal vendetta against PureBasic. No other BASIC languages are receiving such treatment from you. Why not? WPWatcher (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please explain how we can vote to KEEP this article, as I'm not sure and it seems unfair that the uneducated can miss this opportunity. WPWatcher (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PureBasic is an established cross-platform programming language, which is well known an spread all over the world. A lot of commercial as well as freeware programs have been and will be written in PureBasic. What is going on here on Wikipedia??!! KEEP the article about PureBasic!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.84.49 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that added the citations. I didn't realize that it couldn't be from the program's website. What about if it was citations from programs that were programmed in PureBasic? Would that be sufficient? --Travis.m.granvold (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why my cites, that are NOT from PureBasic.com, and INCLUDE computer magazine coverdiscs with tutorial, and newspaper article, and THREE PUBLISHED BOOKS directly about PureBasic, are not enough of a cite or notability. Seriously! Half the other BASICs on Wikipedia don't have ANYTHING like that to support them! Something suspicious is going on here. The entry has existed for years and suddenly, this year alone, it's being attacked by RadioFan for deletion. Why? (And yes, RadioFan, if it gets deleted it IS because of you, since you're spearheading this misguided smear campaign!). WPWatcher (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this page deleted either but where are the cites you refer to? I can't seem to find them... also there seem to be other basic articles with similar issues but they aren't AfD (such as Turbo Basic XBasic ProvideX Run BASIC StarOffice Basic G-BASIC ScriptBasic Mallard BASIC Vilnius BASIC) --Travis.m.granvold (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cites were added in my last edit, but RadioFan reverted them, thus making the article look citeless again. Smear campaign. WPWatcher (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I found them. RadioFan I understand that WPWatcher wasn't supposed to remove the AfD Header at the top of the page but was the references that he added unacceptable for some reason? --Travis.m.granvold (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cites and third-party references restored. I don't see why not. WPWatcher (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(software) that software is notable if it meets ONE of the specified criteria from a four-point list. PureBasic meets criteria #3: The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews[1], written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. We have established this with the cites I and others have posted. Further, I see from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:99_Bottles_of_Beer_test that it states: This page in a nutshell: If nobody has published a "99 Bottles of Beer" program for a specific programming language, it probably isn't notable. and also The 99 Bottles of Beer test can be used to show the lack of notability of a programming language. We can establish that PureBasic therefore IS considered notable due to inclusion here: http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-purebasic-568.html Ergo, PureBasic IS notable, based on the criteria set by Wikipedia's own standards! I rest my case. Thank you. I vote KEEP. WPWatcher (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies for the collator al damage in restoring the AFD notice, it took out external links to images that were being used as references, however there are some issues with those links as references. The PROgrammez reference seems reasonable as it appears to be a Spanish language programming magazine and is verifiable, however the other two do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability as they are simply images of clipings with no context at all. Where did they come from? What magazine, what newspaper? One appeared to be a newspaper but its not clear which from the reference, the other mentions the product in an ad which doesn't do much to satisfy notability questions. I see that there is some context around those references now that will allow them to be verified. The article still needs some cleanup, particularly in its overuse of the official website as a reference and some better citations for the books mentioned but it at least now meets WP:GNG, withdrawing nomination. RadioFan (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2011 (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.