Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (software)


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  20:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

PWCT (software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Yet another Windows-platform easy coding language. This one's (for a novelty) based on FoxPro, rather than VB.

Some sources (in Arabic) but nothing robust enough to indicate that this has any place in an encyclopedia. Does it introduce any new programming paradigm? Is it in widespread use? Has it been used to build any significant new site or product? No. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Does it introduce any new programming paradigm?" : Super Server Paradigm, It's a general-purpose visual programming language, Master Thesisresearch paper, it comes with unique features like using the Time Dimension to run programs in the past or play programs as movie. Video.
 * "Is it in widespread use?" : It's one of the top 5 education software on Sourceforge over 21 million downloads
 * "Has it been used to build any significant new site or product?" : Unlike many visual programming languages that are used only in education, or domain-specific areas, this visual language is used for serious tasks, the Ring programming language is developed using it.
 * Speedy Keep The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article, Three references for notability (2 pages review in Al-Allam Magazine, (5 pages review in research paper) , Half page review in Computertotaal magazine . Enough to satisfy GNG. Charmk (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Ring (programming language) has already gone. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the end of that discussion about Ring, other editors advised me to write an article about PWCT (not Ring) because it will be more easy to demonstrates notability. Charmk (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Starting from your first source, I'm having a hard time finding any information about this magazine. A google search for "Al-Allam magazine" gives 0 results. Searching for "Al-Aalem Magazine" (the spelling used in the pdf you linked), gives 1 result, which is just a mirror of the now-deleted Wikipedia article Ring (programming language). Is there a different search term I should be using? Colin M (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a printed magazine (AL - AALEM(Scientist) Magazine – November 2008 Eleventh Year - No. 116) ISSN: 1319-6545 Deposit number 18/0157 Charmk (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The magazine from 1997, also it's active this link for issue 209 in 2016 of the same magazine. Charmk (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Check for ISSN Charmk (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The fact that it's currently in print and yet there's almost no evidence of its existence on the internet strikes me as a red flag. Looks like this is the creator's website - I could only find a brief mention of the magazine there, among a long list of publications on his CV. Unfortunately I can't read Arabic, so I can't assess the actual contents of the magazine/article, but just based on its apparent obscurity (and little red flags, like the magazine listing a hotmail e-mail address as contact information) I'm disinclined to think that it's a reliable publication for the purposes of establishing the notability of this software. Colin M (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a printed magazine from 1997 with ISSN, this is enough for Wikipedia, having an online website is not a rule as stated in Wikipedia guidelines Charmk (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't know Arabic, and Wikipedia allows Non-English resources, and I know Arabic, this resource is reliable secondary resources contains 2 pages review Charmk (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Point of clarification: above, Charmk says that PWCT is "one of the top 5 education software on Sourceforge". Their link only establishes that it was among the 5 most downloaded programs during one week. Also, of the other software listed on that list, only one has a Wikipedia article: PSeInt. And it's been tagged for notability for a couple years. Colin M (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * this link for a list of education software in Sourceforge, it's always in the top 5 for many years. See web archive Charmk (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The others have Wikipedia pages like Moodle, Tux_Paint, Gnuplot and PSeInt Charmk (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:GNG is not satisfied. I don't find "Al-Allam magazine" reliable for the reasons I mentioned above. Regarding the research paper: I'm not inclined to give much weight to coverage in an academic paper unless it's published in a journal that clearly has strong editorial standards, or is influential in its field, or the authors are well established as subject matter experts. This does not seem to be the case here. Charmk, I don't know if you noticed this, but, ironically, Tersus, an article which you nominated for deletion is mentioned in this very paper (pages 48-49). Finally, there's the Computertotaal article. I don't think this coverage is significant (1 paragraph), and I also don't think the source seems particularly reliable. The article is a "listicle" with no author listed (it seems to be just attributed to "Computertotaal staff"). I also looked at the Al Riyadh source linked in the article. I think it falls a bit short of significant coverage - it's structured as an interview with the creator, Mahmoud Fayed, and is as much about him as PWCT. Colin M (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is satisfied. Charmk (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You opinion is based on ignoring resources for notability because you don't know Arabic, please revise yourself and let others who know Arabic or can use (Google Translation) to evaluate these resources. Al-Allam magazine is a printed magazine from 1997, and I listed the ISSN, see my comments above. Charmk (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The research paper contains over 5 pages about PWCT. it's written by Dr. Jerry M. Chin and Dr. Cathy A. Van Landuyt and published in e-JBEST journal, and we can see the journal editors here, a list of respected people. Charmk (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the eminent technologists Jerry Chin and Cathy Van Landuyt hailing from a storied research institution ranked #111 among "regional midwest universities". I'm sure they're very bright people, but I don't see them being recognized as significant figures in their field, nor do I see any evidence that the paper itself was very influential or widely read. As far as I can tell, it has been cited 0 times since it was published in 2013. Colin M (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Computer!Totaal Magazine is a printed magazine and you can read it's article in Wikipedia here, this article talk about an interesting point that most of visual programming language are used in education and are limited but you can make almost anything with PWCT. the PWCT software support code generation in C, Python, etc and this provides interesting power in a visual programming system. Charmk (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two articles in the Al Riyadh newspaper, not just one. The one that you are talking about is an interview and review written by Prof. Dr. Hend Al-Khalifa, and there is another article written by Khaled Almesahuge Charmk (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are 4 articles about PWCT in Youm7 journal, 2 of them are (interview) so we can't use them for notability, and there are two others by Mones Hawas are reviews written in the science and technology section in the journal, I avoided listing them in this discussion because there are other resources and you told me before in our discussion about Ring that you don't like it, which is not fair in my point of view, but this time I respected your feelings and avoided listing these references just for you which give me a feeling that I am learning to do wrong things in my opinion just to please other editors. Charmk (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PWCT is distributed many times with many magazine like the Electronics for You magazine, and PCQuest_(magazine). I'm not using this reference for notability, but it's just an indicator about popularity. Charmk (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, I discovered this review and added the reference to the article, this review is written by Andrei Fercalo and published by Softpedia, a software and tech-news website based in Romania Charmk (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with that source is typical of all the sources I've looked at here: it doesn't say anything. It's a re-hashed press release, not (by any visible evidence) based on actually using the product or having knowledge of it. It just recycles the same bullet point list as PWCT's own claims.
 * None of these are even explained. The 'features' of PWCT are the same set of wild claims we've had for 4GLs since the 1980s, and with as little to back them up (no effort needed. no skill needed, generates everything that a skilled developer can do). But they're only bullet points, there is no detail to their description, there is no sourcing to WP:V any of these claims. There are no inline citations in this whole article and every sentence warrants a citation needed tag. Maybe PWCT is notable, maybe it isn't: but this article does nothing to sway the reader to think that it is. Having read this article, the reader is no wiser: they haven't learned anything about PWCT. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the article topic is notable and the PWCT software is popular too, and I agree with you, this Wikipedia article needs improvements and could be improved, I started the PWCT article three days ago, and along the time I will try to improve it. You are a great wikipedia writer with many articles in your profile, I just started my journey in writing complete articles in Wikipedia instead of doing little improvements, and I think that I will learn a lot of things from you and the other editors too. Thanks Charmk (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PWCT is different from 4GL, because 4GL are domain specific programming languages, like Clipper, Visual FoxPro, PowerBuilder, etc. but PWCT belongs to another group of programming languages. these languages called (Visual Programming Languages like Scratch, Alice, LabView, Lava, etc) where we don't write textual source code and develop all of the application using more than one dimension (Graphs, Shapes, Colors, Time, etc). The projects in this research area are known to be designed only for Education or some domain specific areas. PWCT is unique because it's (General-Purpose) and are used in serious work and low level stuff because it supports code generation in many programming languages including C, Python, Harbour, etc. Also the software contains unique features like (Run program in the past), (Play program as movie), etc. Charmk (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PWCT is developed using Visual FoxPro, but it's not Visual FoxPro clone, it's another different project, the same as when we say Python is written in C, that doesn't means Python is a C clone, because they are different languages. Charmk (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * PWCT is open source project and from we notice "The way the app is distributed. It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown.". So we have more options too. Charmk (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep This seems to be a continuation of the previous Ring AfD. I assume good faith and take articles in Arab language media as useable RS (there are listed more in the previous AfD eg. Al Riyadh: ). I can imagine even tech related Arab language sources create some sort of bubble not connected to the outside world. Pavlor (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the useful feedback. Charmk (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Strong Keep Sources cited provide evidence of notability. Clicking on the reliable sources found by Charmk I see some give significant coverage so this easily passes the general notability guidelines Ak7324835 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC) — Ak7324835 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There are strong sources that have been found. The programing guides and articles meet WP:NSOFT. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep (my gut said Delete) We relax our inclusion criteria for free & open source per WP:NSOFT. That sidesteps the issue of whether the sources are RS or not (the Arabic language issue is moot). Most seem weak - 1. non-independent as they're interviews or appear to be rewritten interviews 2. Research papers may be borderline or fail "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" WP:SCHOLARSHIP. That's somewhat subjective but per NSOFT is adequate for WP:N. The only issue left is platform - this being Windows, which shouldn't matter. I do agree with the spirit of Andy Dingley. The article is a mess. It comes across as WP:NOTPROMOTION - do any editors need to disclose any WP:COI? draftify to rewrite would be better than deletion, but that is WP:SURMOUNTABLE.  Widefox ; talk 16:51, 27 July 2019 (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.