Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmallBASIC

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmallBASIC

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

Article is non-notable -- SmallBASIC hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Basically, the only people talking about this are the people who created it and people using the SmallBASIC forums. The only references are to the SourceForge repository. The only external links are to the SourceForge repository. That's just not enough -- anyone can say anything they want about their own project, to be notable requires that other people or other independent sources talk about you or reference you in some way. Banaticus (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Guy Macon 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are looking for references to SmallBasic, try searching along with the words "Palm" and "PalmOS." SmallBasic has always been a lot more popular on PalmOS than it has been on desktop OSs. Also be aware that Google may try to be helpful by searching for "Small Basic" instead of "SmallBasic". Putting quotation marks around "SmallBasic" helps. Guy Macon 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a reception section, and a bit from Tech Republic. They wouldn't even mention it unless it was notable. You can't expect any long reviews for software that basic. Dream Focus 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a 108-word mini-review is hardly "significant coverage". Little indication that this package has received coverage of any depth, perhaps due to the fact that it is clearly meant as only an introductory programming tool, lacking much in the way of I/O facilities or commands. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As for coverage, there is a mini-review of it here, [ http://gnosis.cx/publish/programming/palm_languages.html ], 91 posts about it in the comp.sys.palmtops.pilot and alt.comp.sys.palmtops.pilot USENET groups, ([ http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.palmtops.pilot/search?group=comp.sys.palmtops.pilot&q=smallbasic&qt_g=Search+this+group ], [ http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.palmtops.pilot/search?group=comp.sys.palmtops.pilot&q=smallbasic&qt_g=Search+this+group ]), and the SHToy linux shell for PalmOS is written in SmallBasic. Guy Macon 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 14:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nowhere near enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. If we can't expect any significant reviews for software this basic, then we shouldn't expect an article on Wikipedia for software this basic either. SnottyWong ^speak 14:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your notability argument, but i don't understand your "software this basic" argument. Altair BASIC, Commodore BASIC, Integer BASIC and GW-BASIC are all far more basic than SmallBASIC is. Why doesn't the "we shouldn't expect an article on Wikipedia for software this basic" argument apply to them? Guy Macon 18:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those forms of BASIC date from a time when computers themselves were a lot more primitive and tended to use more unsophisticated programming languages.They are of historical interest. Additionally, computers were far less ubiquitous, so there tended to be fewer programming languages (and variants of them) available -- so each one tended to be more notable. SmallBasic was written long after computers outgrew Basic, and during a period where there are hundreds of programming languages (and variants of them), so has garnered very little notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about the software being basic was intended to be a response to Dream Focus' comments above. SnottyWong ^gab 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a lot more notable than a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia. 92.28.241.29 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note The reception section has been expanded and a few references have been added since most of the above delete/keep comments were made. If you wish to convey that you still hold the same position, I believe that you can do so by deleting the user name and putting in a new ~~~~. Guy Macon 02:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the intended application section. Please check my work and edit as needed. Guy Macon 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a former BASIC programmer myself, I can see the merit of this software, and I can see that the rescue effort has improved the article. I have updated the template to say it is class=Start.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 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.