Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic4gl


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Basic4gl
Poorly written article about non-notable computer programming software. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like an interesting language and a well-written tool, but doesn't appear to meet the proposed guidelines for Notability in software or the guidelines for Notability in internet content. -- Victor Lighthill 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Lighthill. Wikidepia shouldn't be used to advertise your software.-- aviper2k7 ( talk ) 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like an interesting language and a well-written tool. THE KING 07:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising. &mdash;Xezbeth 08:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Co-Creator Notice Hi, it's 'Matthew' from the Basic4GL Forum here, there seems to be some problems with the Basic4GL Wikipedia entry so I'm going to try and deal with them here if that's alright.

I only got involved in the 'Basic4GL Wikipedia entry project' Yesterday.

1.) I've removed the Tags beneath the Images which were directing people to the Basic4GL Site in order to Download Games created in Basic4GL.

2.) I'd forgotten to add the GFDL Copyright Tag to the 'Flymass' Image, this has been rectified.

3.) I've added a Link to the History of the BASIC Programming Language.

4.) Some of you have questioned the Importence of Basic4GL in the 'Realm' of Programming Languages, I'd just like to draw your attention to another BASIC programming Language which has a Site on Wikipedia FreeBasic. If FreeBasic has a Site then I really can't see why Basic4GL can't.

5.) Just discovered that BlitzBasic a Commercial version of the BASIC Programming Language is on Wikipedia, surely their Site reads more like an Advertisement than our's does. --Visi calc 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 'Matthew Basi4GL Forum' --Visi calc 19:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC) 'Updated by Matthew' — Visi calc (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Creator Before it was messed up and needed an expert so we are in the process of making the article better written so hang on! an also heres some stuff that might stop you thinking its non notible http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/basic.shtml http://forums.halodev.org/lofiversion/index.php?t561.html http://basic.mindteq.com/Details/Basic4GL.html http://www.klikforever.co.uk/tutorials.php?action=view&id=1 http://www.devmaster.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3303 http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=202166 --Madcow 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To any one who wanted this delted becuase it was an advertisement. your reason tecnicaly is not vlid becuase all you had to do is add the advertisment template like so advertisment - --83.104.170.71 16:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree, this is sick... I've seen tons of less "notable" programming languages out there. And Matthew is correct... If FreeBasic can have an article, why not Basic4GL? Basic4GL is free too... And BASIC... I have personally witnessed Basic4GL's deletion from wikipedia three times now... None of which were advertising and I fail to see how this isn't considered "notable" when compared to some of the other programming languages on here. FreeBASIC/Free pascal/Euphoria/FASM... I have tried all of those and I can't see how any of them are more "notable" -David — 70.104.113.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Non-notable, advert, all that.  Also, to Visi Calc - Pointing to articles that you feel are less notable than this isn't a defense.  The only result of that is that it's now really likely that the FreeBasic article will get AfD'd as well. --PresN 19:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Basic4gl is a great new programming language for beginners and it deserves recognition. I've noticed the language bieng mentioned in a wide variety of discussion forums lately: it is gaining popularity and support.  I see no logical reason to deny people information on Basic4gl, and patrons of Basic4gl and Wikipedia would be dissapointed at such an act.  "Notability" is no criteria on which to base this decision, and if it were, a lack of notability should be an arguement for keeping Basic4gl here.  Is the goal of Wikipedia only to regurgitate widely available, notable information?  Should information on Basic4gl not be available from Wikipedia simply because it's not widely available elsewhere? — 140.211.24.87 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Message to PresN You've had Six Months to Delete the FreeBASIC Article on Wikipedia. I've noticed you haven't done it yet.--Visi calc 23:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Matthew
 * Delete I hate advert articles. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and ignore the SPA/IP's above. Daniel.Bryant 00:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is nuts! Danny Lilithborne 01:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with Victor Lighthill. The spamtastic nature of the BlitzBasic article doesn't justify keeping this; it justifies deleting the BlitzBasic article. The FreeBasic article can be moved to the OSS Wikia. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not meeting notability requirements in WP:SOFTWARE. NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 06:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's only appropriate if an editor believes that a worthwhile article can be salvaged on the subject. Fan-1967 19:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

well looks like the editor has. --Madcow 22:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Basic4GL is being declared as non-notable and/or not meeting the proposed WP:SOFTWARE, how many articles in Category:BASIC programming language family are you going to list for AfD? The article also appears (to me at least) to be less of an advertisement after substituting the second pronoun. —LOL 21:50, 6 October 2006 (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.