Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT


 * 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. I don't think enough has changed since the very recent deletion of an article on the same topic to warrant a different outcome. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

PWCT
AfDs for this article:  AfDs for this article: 


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software language. red dog six (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Programming Without Coding Technology. Deleted in 2008 & 2010. 220  of  Borg 03:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This page seems to be a cut-and-paste. It started ( I think!) At PWCT (software), then 'moved' to PWCT (programming language), then actually moved 'properly' to PWCT. The original page still exists. 220  of  Borg 04:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC) corrected pages swapped! 220  of  Borg 04:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. There is already an open AfD on this article subject at Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language). It looks like the article's creator, User:Msfclipper, decided to try to speedy delete the article that was tanking in the AfD and take an an old version of it to paste up at a new page title with the disingenuous edit summary "Starting the PWCT page on Wikipedia". --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Oof!  This page started as PWCT (programming language) and was headed for deletion at Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language).  The author of the product and the article, User:Msfclipper aka User:Mahmoud Fayed, moved the article to PWCT (software) and also made a copy at PWCT, which he then marked for speedy deletion.  Then User:Reddogsix and User:220 of Borg got involved and that's where it gets hairy.  Reddogsix undid the speedy deletion request on PWCT and 220 of Borg replaced all of PWCT (software), including the AfD message, with a redirect to PWCT, which he AfD'ed here. What should have happened is that the copy at PWCT should have been speedy deleted and this AfD should not have opened.  Msnicki (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was 'hairy' well before I or Reddogsix chimed in! :-\ I'm staying out of it now though I have dropped a message on User:Deb's talkpage as they were the last Admin (I think) to delete PWCT in October 2013. 220  of  Borg 10:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's be accurate, I did not remove the CSD, I PROD'd it and then AfD'd it. The removal was accomplished by others.   red dog six  (talk) 14:14, 21

November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I concede, without carefully laying out the edit histories of all these pages, interleaving and ordering by timestamp, I don't know what happened. I saw the original move.  It seemed pointless but it didn't break the on-going AfD and I could at least follow it.  Then a few hours later, it was like a bomb went off and there was chaos.  Msnicki (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dithering. Actually, I think this might be the page that should be kept. It is far better than the page I deleted last month, and infinitely superior to the one being discussed at Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language).Deb (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Per the links in my comment above, this is just a straight copy of the PWCT (programming language) article from two weeks ago, before any attempts were made to source it. The article creator appears to have (while logged out) thinned PWCT (programming language) to a stub, copypasted an earlier version of it at PWCT, and then tried to speedy PWCT (programming language) as author-requests-deletion (which was rejected). If this content is worth keeping, we should salvage the original article for the sake of the edit history. --McGeddon (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a better article only because there's less of it. Once gone, it could be perfect. :)  There are still no reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability.  Msnicki (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This computing article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Msfclipper (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete (none of the original issues have been addressed) TEDickey (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The overlapping AfD at Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language) was closed a few days ago with the verdict that the article's creator was, despite being able to point to seventy forum, blog and primary sources, unable to demonstrate that PWCT met WP:NSOFT. This copy of the article offers no better sources; in fact, it doesn't offer any. --McGeddon (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was a bit surprised that this got relisted but looking at my !vote above, I realize I should have given a guidelines-based reason for deletion, rather than just complaining about the copy. It's not fair to assume the patrolling admin will have read all the history through the previous AfD/Supernova and AfD/PWCT discussions.  is the author of the PWCT and Supernova programming languages and of the articles here on WP on those subjects.  Notability on Wikipedia requires reliable, independent, secondary sources actually about the subject.  Every one of those words means something particular here.  This has been explained in those previous AfDs.  What we got instead was a kind of citation spam, a huge volume of completely irrelevant citations to blog and discussion board posts.  These are called questionable sources and it took time to check them all.  When Msfclipper made a copy PWCT article as the AfD closed in on PWCT (programming language) it felt like an evasion of the AfD process. For real.  There are no sources to support notability.  I looked.  Msnicki (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Here are some references which establish notability:, , . ~KvnG 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * probably not: the first one is questionable since it appears to be based on text written by Fayed (which is not a good indication), the second one was written by the person we've been discussing, and the third is by an anonymous reviewer. So only one is a possibility.  Bear in mind that WP:Notability says "significant coverage", and given the status of the first one as a dubious review, we've still got nothing to discuss TEDickey (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * as a reminder, it's easy to distinguish a review from cut/paste/massage of advertising material. The former ferrets out both strengths and weaknesses and makes pointed comparisons against similar products.  Advertising material does not. TEDickey (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tedickey. None of these qualifies as a reliable independent secondary source.  The first is an anonymous review on a catalog site and may well have been contributed by the author of PWCT.  The second was bylined by author of the PWCT.  And the third is an interview with the author on a wiki site, presenting only his own ideas in his own words.  All of these are what we call questionable sources.  None of these sites has a reputation for editorial control, needed to allow us to consider them reliable.  In addition, all three sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY.  Msnicki (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand the criteria is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources." We each independently assess whether this criteria is met. Thanks and  for sharing your analysis. I agree that this is not a strong keep but I believe it meets the minimum criteria. ~KvnG 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * hmm - which criteria are you referring to? WP:Notability has several things to say, including "Independent of the subject" - all of the points in the guideline have to be met. TEDickey (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here are more links which establish notability:, , , , The first result in.
 * Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:

The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources.


 * PWCT is published software (free-open source, 8 years old, total downloads over 6,500,000 downloads and using google search you can easily find the software  ).
 * PWCT is provided as a distance learning course by King Saud University - Chair of pervasive and Mobile computing.
 * PWCT is covered by free Arabic tutorials/books written by many authors.
 * PWCT is covered by many articles in printed newspaper in KSA, Iraq, Emarat and Egypt
 * PWCT is used for developing the Supernova programming language and this is an advanced usage of a visual programming language, this paper cite Supernova.
 * PWCT is used for developing the Critical nodes application and this paper is a result of this application
 * The article can be improved by the help of contributors. Msfclipper (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Another avalanche of junk links. Msnicki (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't get my point of view, My comment is not only about links, the point is that the Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria ... You are talking about the first criteria but there are three else and PWCT is notable through these criteria. Msfclipper (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The "distance learning course" needs a clearer source than a certificate (signed by Mahmoud Fayed, PWCT's developer?) and a list of developers on PWCT's own site.
 * Self-published tutorials by Mahmoud Fayed and other users are not "written by independent authors and published by independent publishers".
 * The "covered by many articles" links you provide are both WP:PRIMARYNEWS interviews with the developer: these are not regarded as reliable sources.
 * A research paper mentioning Supernova in one paragraph was insufficient for the article you created at Supernova (programming language), so is also insufficient for the language used to develop Supernova which the paper does not mention at all.
 * Mahmoud Fayed writing a paper about a Critical Nodes application that he used his own PWCT software on confers no notability to that software. --McGeddon (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at this, another article in Alriyadh (printed newspaper), the aritcle is not an interview, the author write about useful free open source software, you will find the article point to three projects including PWCT. Also you can look at this it is article (not interview) and printed in Emart, and look at this  it is also an article (not interview). Along the time i can come with more and better references, also other contributors could help (add/edit/remove to create a better article). Msfclipper (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I totally get your point of view. Unfortunately, it's not a neutral point of view.  This is your product and of course it seems important and notable to you.  And while there are indeed other ways besides reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability, there is nothing to indicate that PWCT satisfies any of those criteria either.  There is no evidence it's the subject of instruction anywhere.  There are no third party instruction manuals or reviews (or we'd have already !voted to keep).  And there's certainly no showing that anyone but you regards PWCT as having historical or technical significance.  All we have is this continuing flood of completely irrelevant citations.  When you post a junk link, we have still to go look it, which takes time, all of it wasted on junk you should know by now can't possibly satisfy the guidelines.  This is why patience is running thin.  All it takes is 2 good sources.  You just don't have them.  Msnicki (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here two references about students talking about the distance learning,  and along the time i will come with better references from the university website (I will try). Also we already have good references but how you don't consider articles (written by independent authors and printed by independent publishers), Maybe you don't have neutral point of view or conflict of interest. Msfclipper (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What part of blogs don't count as reliable sources do you still not understand? The rest of your comments to me and Tedickey, suggesting we're the ones who are biased, is just lame.  I think I'm done.  Someone put a fork in this.  Msnicki (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * this is not a blog post !!, it is an article (not interview) in printed newspaper. and many others that you ignore!. Msfclipper (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oof! Why am I even bothering?  That's one paragraph regurgitating some basic info about this software but adding absolutely nothing that appears to be the writer's own thoughts.  And even though it's not labeled a blog, that's certainly what it looks like, right down to author being identified only by his email.  Msnicki (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Alriyadh Newspaper is a printed journal, see this and the article is a printed article in the newspaper and written in a page around computer and technology by writers with knowledge in this domain, Alriyadh Newspaper covered PWCT two times, one in 2008 (half page in the journal)  and the article is written by Hend Al-Khalifa (Associate Professor, Information Technology Department, College Of computer and Information Sciences)  Msfclipper (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) The second article  is written in 2010, by Khalid Almusehig, the article contains the writer's own thoughts, he select only good open source software (in his opinion) to present in the journal. PWCT is covered in many printed journals by many independent author in articles published by many independent publishers. Msfclipper (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm done. I've looked at almost 100 of your "sources".  At some point, I really am walking away.  This is that point.  05:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Check your Wikipedia Sprite, we are here to help Wikipedia, we give time for that, if you are tired, need to take a rest, no problem but when you post be objective and add useful comments that help Wikipedia. Msfclipper (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and are under no personal WP:OBLIGATION to continue discussions they are finding unproductive. --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all volunteers, we share the same mission (help Wikipedia). Msfclipper (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another reference Msfclipper (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are doing a good job of convincing us that Mahmoud Samir Fayed is the only person who writes about PWCT, aside from this page TEDickey (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Be objective Msfclipper (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Another two references from King Saud University website, , PWCT copyright  (ISBN : 978-9960-55-981-0 ) Msfclipper (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When Google-translated to English, the first page offers no context for what the table means or why PWCT is listed in it (it just says "Copyright that has been protected by intellectual property and software technology licensing"). Is it just stating that Fayed worked on PWCT while studying at King Saud University, therefore they own the intellectual property? The second page is a JPG which I am unable to translate. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They have English website, Their mission is to transfer technological innovation developed at KSU to society (PWCT is a free open source product supported by King Saud University from 2011, They use it in distance learning and in developing software for internal use by research projects.). The second page (JPG) says that a copy from the software (and documentation/reference) is included in King Fahd National Library under number 1433/2828 in 1434/2/10 (date = 2012/12/24), by the way this is another article about PWCT (published in printed newspaper called Youm7 in Egypt)  and a copy from this article is publish by Maktoob(Yahoo)  and again i will come with more/better references along the time, also other contributors could help by modifying the articleMsfclipper (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any corresponding page on their English website. A lot of your sources turn out to be written by Mahmoud Samir Fayed - when you say "[KSU] use it in distance learning and in developing software for internal use by research projects", do you mean "Mahmoud Samir Fayed does some teaching at KSU, and during one such course he used the language he invented"? WP:NSOFT requires that software be the subject of instruction at multiple universities.
 * I can't judge the reliability of the Maktoob article, but an interview with Fayed is once again WP:PRIMARYNEWS. And a copy of a student project being filed in their university's library is, as I understand it, standard practice and confers no notability. --McGeddon (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will try to find a better references in the university website about the distance learning course, but for now, PWCT satisfy WP:NSOFT through " It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources", PWCT is free open source, 8 years old, over 6,500,000 downloads, over 200,000 web hits (google search), covered by many printed newspapers (independent authors - independent publishers), covered by many websites, in the TIOBE INDEX at position 101 of 228 programming languages worldwide, in the top 20 growing projects according to Sourceforge statistics. PWCT is a Visual Programming Language and these languages are few, not widely used like C/C++/Java/C#/PHP/Python/Ruby, check this article [] you will find that (1) most of these visual languages are not widely used but still notable in their domain and PWCT is notable enough in this domain to be in Wikipedia (2) most of these visual language are commercial or freeware and there are little open source visual programming language, and PWCT is free open source with over 30 contributors. PWCT is used to create large scale software (ex: supernova programming language) and this is a clear technical value for a visual programming language (most of the visual languages in the list are used in (education, domain-specific, database, simulations and games). From here i ask other Wikipedia contributors with knowledge in visual programming languages to share their ideas about the topic and vote (Keep or Delete) no problem but more votes in my opinion will make the picture more clear, in my opinion it is clear that the software is notable in the domain Msfclipper (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If it were clear, you could find someone to agree with you. TEDickey (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am willing to give the benefit of doubt and give this time for it to run its natural course. Why all the aggression? ~KvnG 21:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are you asking that question? TEDickey (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I have an inclusionist bent and am concerned about new editor retention. ~KvnG 21:19, 6 December 2013 (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.