User talk:Fontignie

Deletion discussion about RainCode PL/1
Hello, Fontignie,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether RainCode PL/1 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/RainCode PL/1.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Batard0 (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of RainCode COBOL
Hello, Fontignie. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, RainCode COBOL, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Salix (talk): 08:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Salix.
 * Thanks for your question.
 * Actually, I don't get it... All COBOL compilers have their wiki page (like Microfocus, fujitsu, etc). There are 3, maybe 4 COBOL compilers for .NET worldwide. COBOL is a major language, and .NET a major platform. The instance of COBOL compiler developed by Raincode has its place on wikipedia, don't you think? Otherwise, you'll need to erase all compiler's pages, for all languages, etc... Am i wrong? Fontignie (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't get it... All COBOL compilers have their wiki page (like Microfocus, fujitsu, etc). There are 3, maybe 4 COBOL compilers for .NET worldwide. COBOL is a major language, and .NET a major platform. The instance of COBOL compiler developed by Raincode has its place on wikipedia, don't you think? Otherwise, you'll need to erase all compiler's pages, for all languages, etc... Am i wrong? Fontignie (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't get it... All COBOL compilers have their wiki page (like Microfocus, fujitsu, etc). There are 3, maybe 4 COBOL compilers for .NET worldwide. COBOL is a major language, and .NET a major platform. The instance of COBOL compiler developed by Raincode has its place on wikipedia, don't you think? Otherwise, you'll need to erase all compiler's pages, for all languages, etc... Am i wrong? Fontignie (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of RainCode COBOL for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RainCode COBOL is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/RainCode COBOL (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 20:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Raincode for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raincode is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Raincode until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.} -- Finngall  talk  18:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)