mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAR (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SCAR_(programming_language)

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 No consensus. Espresso Addict 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCAR (programming language)

[edit]
SCAR (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod - I believe that SCAR is not notable outside of RuneScape cheating (which is not particularly notable itself) and I believe there are no reliable sources about this subject, or to establish any sort of notability. OSbornarf 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think it is notable enough.–Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 20:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- OSbornarf 20:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I am in 2 minds about this one, but given the fact it was developed specifically for usage in a small community/environment, and that I can't easily find an adaquate amount of notability outside of this (or indeed a suffice amount of publications which would convince me that it meets minimum notability requirements for inclusion), i'll have to vote for deletion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent, reliable sources. The title is also a bit misleading; it's a Pascal interpreter, which means it's unlikely to generate the coverage you'd expect from a genuinely new programming language. Plus it doesn't seem notable enough to have been included in the RuneScape article. Thomjakobsen 22:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per lack of sourcing/information. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly against deleting SCAR has a very strong and interesting history behind it, and is more than notable enough to keep. Over 30'000 people know about SCAR and how it works, and the majority use and program with it everyday. SCAR is primarily used for cheating in the online game RuneScape and is the only program which has stood the test of time with this game making it infamous on RuneScape. Apart from that, SCAR can also be used for many other things, such as doing boring repetitive tasks on your computer easily and even creating games. It is a great way to slowly slide your way into the world of programming, and since learning how to use SCAR successfully, i have found that i can also use Pascal, Delphi, PHP and CSS extremely easily as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.217 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as one claim to notability ends in a deadlink. --Gavin Collins 20:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not-quite-weak-but-not-strong-either Keep Many people use SCAR and there are many sites that talk about it quite frequently. The reason why there aren't many sources outside the community is because it is considered taboo because of its widespread use in making cheats for video games. But if you look at the Razor 1911 or similar articles, you'll find that almost all the sources link to community sites/forums and such. And if you Google "Scar programming -Antarctic," you get almost 700,000 pages, only few of which are not talking about the programming language. Also, @Thomjakobsen, the reason why it's not on the RuneScape article is because of the game owner's dislike of it. It periodically will show up, but quickly get deleted (or at least that's what used to happen a 10 months ago...) @Gavin, sorry, changed the link to the black book; it's a zip but virusless.
In my opinion, this article could greatly improve if someone took 20 minutes to look for more varied sources (If my memory serves me correctly, SCAR was actually mentioned on the RuneScape page a couple of years ago), and tweak the overall feel of the article (make sure there are no spelling/grammar/continuity mistakes, switch around sentences, mess with sections. Aside from it's almost complete lack of sources (which like I said can quickly be fixed by someone who will "take one for the team" and stop playing Halo 3 for 20 minutes), there are almost no other faults in this article. Qoou.Anonimu 01:46, 28 September 2007 (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.