Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OWBasic

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 redirect‎ to List of BASIC dialects#OWBasic. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OWBasic

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects. ApexParagon (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There does not appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage. Interesting use of basic for Casio PDAs, but it's a very niche group of hobbyists. Most information is primary or Casio PDA forums. The ancient website for the software is here for citing in redirect:[1]. Redirecting to casio PDA page is also a possibility.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clenpr: An Internet Archive search yield more than a dozen mentions in computer magazines. Many of those should be good for a post-redirect mention. BD2412 T 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of these, I suppose I would go with: Paul Ward, "Rebuttal #1 to Why the "CoCo 4" Will Fail", The OSK'er, Issue 5 (1991), p. 11.

You can't set up a multiuser system on a PC without spending about $2000 far a product that hacks up the operating system and brings out several serial ports. What about a compiled BASIC and an assembler? Print spooling software? That will coat extra on a PC (although OWBasic does come with PCs).

BD2412 T 16:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GWBasic (note G not O) came as a standard item with IBM-compatible PCs for a long time. Are we 100% sure this quote isn't a mistype? Elemimele (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: We can't be 100% sure any quote on anything isn't a mistype, but "G" and "O" are not next to each other on the keyboard. BD2412 T 16:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No but if something's been read by scanning software, G and O are visually similar. Note that the source you've provided also mistypes "far" for "for", and "coat" for "cost" (the latter being adjacent keys, the former distant). I think it's extremely dangerous to assume that it really means OWBasic given the context and the sheer quantity of typos in a very short bit of text. Elemimele (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your archive.org link above includes the document image that the quote was OCR scanned from—it's clearly GWBasic. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pocket Viewer, as Anonrfjwhuikdzz suggests - that article already has a brief description of OWBasic. I can't find any reliable, independent references that would support a separate article; the few hits are all OCR errors for GWBASIC, and/or predate the Pocket Viewer series (1999). Adam Sampson (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Otherwise it would be inconsistent to have a redirect to page where there is no mention of it Clenpr (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects#OWBasic. I added an entry there. It does not meet the notability criteria for a standalone article, but there's way enough primary sources to prove this does exist and has been discussed in the niche of Pocket viewer users. BD2412: Note that a lot of apparent historical mentions are actually GWBasic but with OCR errors. I have not checked them all though. --MarioGom (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, provide an independent published source. See WP:RS Clenpr (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects#OWBasic. This does not have enough coverage for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2025 (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.