Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Component Pascal

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:51, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Component Pascal
This page is a promotional article for Oberon Microsystems, which is the seller of "Component Pascal". Further, "Component Pascal" is not in fact related to the language Pascal in any way, it is actually a variant of the language Oberon. In short, the page is promotional, and misleading, and should be deleted. I would suggest that the page be rewritten to be less misleading (and I have added a comment to the page to that effect). However, the page was clearly posted by, and has virtally all its references to, Oberon Microsystems. (this VfD was started by 192.18.43.11, an anonymous user. --Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC))


 * Can you provide some reference urls? drini &#9742; 01:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please examine the links at the bottom of the article. All but two point back to Oberon Microsystems, and the other two are close associates. Scott A. Moore


 * KEEP. The only part that looks promotional was the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote. Furthermore, Component Pascal may not be related to Pascal but it is the name of the language. Damicatz 01:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would you bother to make that accuation (the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote). You can check that easily by simply looking at the history of the page. Scott A. Moore


 * I make a Pascal, lets put that up front. I saw this companies article on their own Pascal, and thought "why not make one on my version of Pascal". Well, the rules clearly forbid that, so I didn't do it. However, that's just as clearly what the creator of that article did, create a self promoting peice. So please, tell me the difference. "Component Pascal" is not a widely implemented langauge, it is one company's product. All of the references at the bottom go back to that company. I'm ok with it. If thats ok, then I think you are basically telling me to go ahead and list my companies product (which is actually a Pascal language product, not just named that) as well. Am I slightly annoyed ? Yes. Oberon Microsystems have been promoting "Component Pascal" even though their product had nothing to do with Pascal, and was in fact Oberon renamed. I emailed them about it, they told me "Pascal is dead, we can use the name". This, to me, clearly indicates that they wish to create confusion on the part of the reader. End of rant, sorry. Scott A. Moore


 * I'll add: No, I would not list my Pascal implementation. I like and respect Wikipedia, and I will obey its laws and conventions. Too bad others don't feel the same way. Scott A. Moore.


 * (this anonymous edit was also made by 192.18.43.11. --Ketsuban (is better than you) 01:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC))''


 * The poster above referred to "The only part that looks promotional was the part added at the bottom, most likely by the initiator of this vote". I have pulled these links that were placed there at the start of the page according to the "history" tab from the page:


 * Oberon Microsystems
 * Language Report
 * More Information
 * Gardens Point Component Pascal


 * If these links are not what you are referring to, please state that. I also respectfully request that you refrain from making wild (and completely unfounded) attacks on me. I have a long history with Pascal, going back to 1979, and have worked extensively on the Pascal language page here at Wikipedia, which I have helped become more factual and less biased. I have every reason to be concerned that this page advances disinformation against the Language Pascal> however, besides its disinformation aspect, it CLEARLY voilates the Wikipedia rules on posting to promote a company or product. Please excuse the poor editing, I am a new user of Wikipedia. user samiam95124


 * Keep. Excellent article.  Lovely, succinct, and tells me everything I need to know in ten seconds.  I wish all Wikipedia articles could be this good. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I still think that the article should be kept. Should we remove Delphi next because it's a Borland-specific implementation of a language? It's still a programming language regardless of if it is only by one company or not. Damicatz 18:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It could still use some work to make it less promotional, but that's not something the article should be deleted for. -- Jonel 21:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * So if I understand, I would be also free to place an article online about our company's Pascal (which is a true Pascal, by the way), as long as it is factual about the language and does not read like an ad. True ? samiam95124, 26 May 2005
 * Yes. Please do that.  This is what Wikipedia is for--providing neutral information.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. Isn't this VfD null and void anyway since it was started by an anon user? Ketsuban (is better than you) 21:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * '''comment: Why would it be?--24.221.65.46 21:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Anonymous users may nominate just as anyone else. Their votes may be discouted at times, but their reasoning is not. Radiant_* 08:16, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a perfectly good article. --Carnildo 22:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and wikify. Hermione1980 22:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not ANON, I have signed up since posting that. Ok ?samiam95124, 26 May 2005
 * Welcome. The anonymous deletion listing was a perfectly reasonable one and was acceptable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing unencyclopedic about programming languages.  So the article's genesis may have been commercially motivated...  that's one of the reasons why EVERYONE has editor priviledges; to make good, neutral articles.  -- Un  focused  02:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. JamesBurns 11:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Come on, you don't just delete an article on a programming language designed by Niklaus Wirth! The article is OK as it is; could be improved, of course... GregorB
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.