Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveCode

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. Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LiveCode

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod. lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LiveCode under the name of Revolution is given significant coverage in Wally Wang's Beginning Programming for Dummies, 4th edition. Chikako
LiveCode is a re-labeling of the product Runtime Revolution which has been available and used extensively for almost 10 years. I suggest that the title be modified to include the phrase formerly Runtime Revolution (or later titles e.g. RevStudio, etc.) Marc Siskin
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Advertisement (LiveCode is a much richer and far more powerful evolution of that original program, supporting multiple platforms, devices and many fundamental language extensions such as object-oriented behaviors.) for a minor programming language. Were this language significant, I'd expect to find books about it from people other than its publisher. Note that some book and scholar hits seem to refer to some kind of music software with a similar name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tone of the article has been modified to make the point of view more neutral. Bibliography, references and external links added. The fact that another software product may have a similar name doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Devin Asay (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page to remove this reference that could be interpreted as advertising. I have added a number of additional links, including to one of the LiveCode courses being taught in higher education, one of the recent independent reviews and a number of 3rd party resource sites including documentation and 3rd party development frameworks.
LiveCode is an established product with a relatively small but growing developer community. As Marc Siskin notes, the recent name change may contribute to the lack of references, but this should change as 3rd party LiveCode web sites update their sites. Regarding lhcoyc's "Advertisement" complaint, suggest the superlatives be toned down and features described in more neutral language. I know of a number of 3rd party web sites that deal with LiveCode (formerly Revolution) programming. External links and references can be improved by including those. - Devin Asay (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "established" and "relatively small" dont go well together. Without reliable sources it's hard to show notability here. 3rd party websites may or may not be reliable.--RadioFan (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RE "relatively small". Size of a user community isn't necessarily the determining factor in whether something qualifies as notable. I would argue that LiveCode is the most notable descendant of HyperCard, an enormously influential product in the 1980s and 90s. Perhaps this point ought to be made in the article--i.e., citations that make this point. And granted, 3rd party websites are of varying reliability, but a large number of sites that cite or are devoted to LiveCode (or whatever development tool) I would think are indications of notability. Devin Asay (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hypercard is certainly notable but that's not what this AFD is discussing. Can you provide reliable sources which charactize LiveCode as a "notable descendent" of Hypercard or is this your analysis? Also, the number of sites mentioning LiveCode doesn't do that much to establish its notability, significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources does. I'm still not seeing that in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having now read through the Wikipedia guidance you referenced, I see your point re notability. Significance should be established by coverage in reliable sources.Devin Asay (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added supporting citations from established tech publications to the article and modified the tone for a neutral point of view. Bibliographic citations have been added. External links significantly expanded to include a sample of reviews, tutorials, support sites, and third party frameworks. Two claims in the main body of the article still require citations; citation needed templates added. Further comments appreciated regarding this article. Devin Asay (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Marc Siskin's suggestion that either the title be modified to include the previous name, or that the previous page that was about Revolution (the product, not the company) be reinstated with a automatic forward to the new page. In regards to the request for sources, are there any old Hypercard discussions still on the 'net that refer people to Metacard, which became Revolution and now LiveCode? As Metacard/Revolution/LiveCode are essentially one in the same, any reference to Metacard or Revolution should be the same as a reference to LiveCode for purposes of referencing. Just a brief search brought up these pages:

http://www.hyperactivesw.com/mctutorial/

http://zathras.de/angelweb/xtalkinterviews-scott-raney.htm

http://zathras.de/angelweb/xtalkinterview-jacqueline-landman-gay.htm

http://www.macintouch.com/hypercard.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/27/revolution_runtime/

Gypsyware (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the above, the Register appears to be a reliable source, not so sure about the rest. Its just not rising to the required level of "significant coverage" This isn't a mater of finding Google hits on the name or previous name. It's about establishing notability. Echoing an earlier !voter above, I would think that a notable language would have a book written about it, especially one that has been around for a while. While I appreciate your eagerness to see an article included, I'm just not seeing notability here.

Keep. The Scotsman (major UK broadsheet newspaper), The Register, MacWorld, MacNN, Network World and PCWorld are all valid independent news organizations which do meet the criteria for notability under Wikipedia notability guidelines. Specifically they are valid as reliable sources, for demonstrating significant coverage and as independent sources. These sources do provide critical analysis, for example the platform won the Annual Editor's Choice award from MacWorld in 2004. When measuring against these criteria I count 10 of the 14 references as meeting the criteria - as specified on the Wikipedia notability page. There are two books, one of which is out of print (being in print is not a requirement for notability) and the other of which is linked in the Bibliography - Programming for Dummies, which extensively covers the platform. There is a link to one of the University Courses where the platform is taught. I have added a link to a paper given on the language to the WWW 2009 conference which is another valid source as the paper was invited by the conference committee. RunRevKev (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Another publication that is an independant reliable source which has covered is MacTech Magazine. MacTech is a print publication that has been in existence since 1984. There are two references to articles that covered Runtime Revolution, now LiveCode. In addition to the two article references there have been online news briefs covering the changes covering developments such as the change from Runtime Revolution to LiveCode. MJKTor (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Himalayan Academy Publications and Hinduism Today has used LiveCode for inhouse publications and web content production using internet enabled desktop applicaitons and as a CGI on it's web servers and for educational tools for over 12 years (since 1999 when it was called "Metacard"). Our daily blogs are generated by desk internet enabled desktop clients built with LiveCode and such dynamically generated pages as http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/lexicon/ use both LiveCode CGI and a LiveCode stack for content on the web server. We network volunteers around the world to do remote data entry and content development using LiveCode internet enabled desktop clients.

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/audio/transcription/

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/livecode/

Kailasnatha —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am concerned about the number of users who appear to have arrived only for this AFD. Have they been solicited from another site? Stifle (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that as well. Vote canvassing? Sock puppets? Coincidence? its hard to say. I'm still concerned that so many of the references being pointed to in this AFD dont mention the product at all. Still not clear about the name change and if these are the same products or not. The Register is reasonable as a reliable source but some many of the others are questionable. --RadioFan (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article from macnn.com:

Runtime Revolution has dropped the "Revolution" moniker from its self-described "HyperCard descended" cross-platform rapid development environment and updated it under a new name, LiveCode.

Cunard (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sufficient coverage in reliable sources. LiveCode (formerly known as "Revolution") has received paragraphs of coverage in this article from The Register. It has received an in-depth review from MacTech. Both of these sources are reliable and independent of the subject. They are enough to allow LiveCode to pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.