Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tibbo BASIC Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tibbo_BASIC

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tibbo BASIC (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)

Same as the prod. "Non - notable programming language. I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the general notability guideline is met." duffbeerforme (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my PROD rationale. The sources added to justify the de-PROD are not RS and I'm still unable to find anything better. SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Usually, there's at least basic coverage of notable tech Taiwanese companies at the Taipei Times, and I can't even find a single press release about them or this product. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Software (programming language) article of unclear notability, lacking quality RS references. Refs provided are low quality blogs or PR sites, or company pages. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 07:43, 1 March 2016 (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.