mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft MakeCode Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Microsoft_MakeCode

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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft MakeCode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Has some mentions but would be better as a merge into one of the many Microsoft product lists such as List of Microsoft software. CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but I think the subject does have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet notability on its own. I’m open to improving the article with better references if that helps. A merge could work, but I’d prefer to try building it up a bit first—worth a shot before removing it entirely. Vinizex94🌍 01:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is my considered opinion that it would be advantageous to acknowledge that this matter originates from a highly informative publication concerning the BBC Micro:Bit. While I understand and appreciate the rationale underpinning your recommendation, I found the referenced material to be of notable interest, which subsequently granted me access to the associated open-source code. My engagement with this information led me to identify a project for which I now feel considerable enthusiasm. I am of the firm conviction that, notwithstanding the fact that this pertains solely to a single article of moderate popularity and/or utility, it would nevertheless be prudent to retain it within our purview. TechFan6456 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC) TechFan6456 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@TechFan6456: This looks like it was written using AI, and even if it wasn't, looks like WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't a valid rationale. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 00:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HEHE you caught me. But that was basically what I was trying to say. TechFan6456 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2025 (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.