Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beginners Programming Language (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beginners_Programming_Language_(2nd_nomination)

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beginners Programming Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG; the only mention I can find of it online is very brief, passing mentions in some fairly obscure forums; no coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Previously AFD'd at WP:Articles for deletion/Beginners Programming Language, but speedy G4 was declined by an admin, since this is apparently a complete re-write with updates about a 2010 version. Scopecreep (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is notable. See this- http://bpl.conforums.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&num=1208778384 Previous article was deleted in 2007 and it is not good to estimate BPL's current status by that. It become notable long ago in 2009. The given links show it at PC Utilities Magazine. Which is a reliable source. --Programmingfanatics (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this looks to me like an article where the creator with a minimal guidance could demonstrate notability and significantly improve the coverage of the current article according to WP criteria. BO; talk 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of notability did you have in mind? Scopecreep (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No coverage whatsoever in independent reliable sources.  --Lambiam 15:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/6208/bplxw1.png See this. Entry to PC utilities is something to be called notable... --Programmingfanatics (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, Version 1.0 for Windows was included on the "coverdisc" DVD included with issue #99 of PC Utilities of April 3, 2008, and this is all what they had to say about it: "Learn to create a great program in around 20 minutes with this beginners-friendly BASIC programming tool". That is not what I call coverage.  --Lambiam 20:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It appears we have a case of a very well formatted article for a topic that is completely non-notable. There are no third-pary references that I could find other than Download.com where anybody can upload their shareware. There doesn't appear to be an active significant community based on a quick visit to the site's forum, even though this isn't necessarily an indicator of notability. I question if this Wikipedia article is intended as advertising since there is both a free and Pro version of this software, and the website also solicits Paypal donations. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 01:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't recognize the PC Utilities entry(dated 2009) then I seriously doubt that you are according to wikipedia policy. Notability is Notability. It have entry at PC Utilities which is an third party source. And it isn't logical to say that it have only '2 lined' coverage on PC Utilities' cover disc as it would be totally foolish an action to write full page description on cover disc. Also, why it is totally ignored? Why empty handed claims of non notiblity and that I'm advertising for it? I'm not one of programmers making BPL... Forums are inactive because of bad choice of forum software. Programmingfanatics (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, per our notability guideline, requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" means that the sources address the subject directly in detail. I don't see that from the PC Utilities entry. Moreover, the material on the DVD related to BPL (except perhaps for the phrasing in that one-sentence coverdisc browser blurb) was provided by its creator, and thus does not qualify as being independent.  --Lambiam 11:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment. Any old shareware or freeware utility can be included on a PC Utilities disk -- that's the point, that's what they do. That doesn't in itself constitute notability, particularly since outside of PC Utilities, there is absolutely no mention of this software anywhere. I couldn't dig up any reviews or anything. The existence of articles such as that, if they can be found, would make a cause for notability. As for the advertising claim, I was simply speculated that the page was created for advertising purposes. Although product marketing material is definitely grounds for article deletion, I don't see that here. I do speculate, however, that this Wikipedia article itself is intended to create notability for the product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendude64 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:GNG —Ruud 19:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm sorry Programmingfanatics but I have to agree with the other delete !voters here. A 2 line entry on a DVD Shovelware index isn't going to cut it. We need news articles and reviews about this software. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Than fell free to delete... --Programmingfanatics (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2012 (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.