Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic4android


 * 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. Press releases are not sufficient to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 18:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic4android

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Zero notability shown. Artem Karimov (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm the main author for this entry. Basic4android is not just a software. It is a new programming language. I'm new to Wikipedia authoring and still learning. I've now added two references to the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erel2 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I will not argue with you as you all appear to know everything and are much smarter than us the regular users. Some small notes. Basic4android is not an interpreter at all. It is a compiler. The language is similar to Visual Basic and Visual Basic .Net. Basic4android is the most powerful (complete) alternative for developing Android applications without using Eclipse / Java. It is still a very new product so you cannot find a lot of information about it. I don't understand why this topic is less important than many other (similar) topics like DarkBasic, FreeBasic, Liberty_BASIC, PureBasic and many others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erel2 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A google news search turns up some press releases.  -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be another BASIC interpreter compiler, except this one is more like Visual Basic. Does not establish real notability. OSbornarfcontribs. 16:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the status of other articles is not really the point- this article fails to meet the general notability guidelines as it is. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If we "cannot find a lot of information about it", we probably can't have it in Wikipedia. The information here should be verifiable by reliable sources. News stories and the like (not press releases), are what is needed to show this product is in fact notable. (Incidentially, if you are one of the subject's developers, you have conflict of interest. You should not use Wikipedia for promoting your product. If your product becomes notable, others will likely create a page for it.) OSbornarfcontribs. 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As a B4A user who came here to create a page about it, I have to argue in favour of the Wikipedia page being kept, not deleted. It is a very new language but already with a growing user base and has been mentioned on popular sites such as Dr Dobbs and Gizmo Crunch. It has equally as much validity as the other entries for Basic based languages such as those listed in the discussion above, of whom their wikipedia pages have their own websites as their reference source rather than independent sources despite their being longer established.

You argue that news stories not press releases make something worthy of inclusion however if you review any of the Basic languages already mentioned and that have Wikipedia pages you will see a notable lack of news reports on even the more established ones, and given its relative newness you can understand Basic4Android has less press than they currently do hence the lack of widespread external references.

You argue it has zero notability, I would argue that any new programming environment that simplifies programming for the worlds most successful mobile operating system is as worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia as any other such environment for any other platform.

Mistermentality (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Gizmo Crunch just reprinted a press release. And the Dr. Dobbs article is just a rehash of the press release.  The article is primarily quotes and taken from the same press release as can be easily seen when comparing the two. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.