Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoolBasic


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CoolBasic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software project with no third party refs to verify, still less show the importance of, what is here. Prod contested by the author without addressing the concerns on references or, as required for removal, explaining any rationale. I42 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No coverage in reliable sources. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there aren't much reliable information available about CoolBasic due to the fact that the program doesn't have English documentation and is used only in Finland by small groups of people learning to code for the first time. CoolBasic has been introduced and reviewed in Finnish computer magazine MikroBitti and was included on their H&H CD-ROM but such references are quite difficult to link to Wikipedia. However, as stated in the article (and as stated in the "official" CoolBasic website) there is a whole new generation of CoolBasic in development. The community has been waiting for the next version of CoolBasic for over three years now - I think that's enough proof that CoolBasic is an important language amongst its users. The new version of CoolBasic is expected to be released this year and I truly hope that this article could stay until that. After the release I'm sure everyone will agree that CoolBasic is a notable software. --Ruuttu (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC) — Ruuttu (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are conflating your personal esimation of importance and significance with notability. Nothing less than in depth coverage by multiple independent sources, from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, will cut the mustard here.  If you want to make an argument that holds water, cite some.  Sources!  Sources!  Sources!  Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Meh. --85.156.146.81 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2009 (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.