Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bxbasm
Bxbasm[edit]
Perhaps the most non-notable BASIC variant ever created. Was found after User:Stormie mentioned it on the VfD discussion on HotBasic. Homepage on geocities, 66 google hits of which 29 are "unique" sites, and most of those sites are just forks of WP. CryptoDerk 18:17, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, Bxbasm isn't well known because it is very new.
- Reasons why the Blunt_Axe_project is notable:
- includes both a compiler and an interpreter
- includes a tutorial on compiler writing in an open source setting
- part of a yahoo group dedicated to learning compiler development
- There are very few free, open source, actively developed Basic languages. And even fewer that produce natively compiled code.
- Other reasons to keep;
- in active development, so likely to increase in popularity
- Some people are fond of esoteric programming languages, just like some people are interested in bird watching. Should we delete all encyclopedia entries of rare birds?
- I did not learn about Bxbasm on Wikipedia. I stumbled on Bsbasm because I am interested in compilers and different programming languages. Bxbasm is a good web resource for learning how to write a compiler. Duk 20:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see how any of the things you listed make this notable at all. Just because a piece of software does something else that "not very many others" do, doesn't make it notable. If becoming popular, a standard, or being very widely used because of these features, then that would be notable. You think that because this project has a Yahoo Group that it's notable? That's ridiculous. Your prediction that it will become more popular and MAYBE notable in the future isn't a reason to keep this article.
- Give me a good reason why this is notable, such as it's been used to develop lots of widely used software, that it's some standard, or that it's been a major influence on the field of programming languages and I'll gladly change my vote. Right now the article is full of POV claiming that it produces fast executables without any comparison to other things, and saying that it's part of the "famous" "Let's Build a Compiler" series -- which itself only turns up on 275 websites. CryptoDerk 21:11, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Crypto, I offered my opinion and my vote. I don't intend to debate. And I'm sorry that you think my reasons, which I stand by, are ridiculous. Duk 22:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to debate with people. Since I put this up on VfD, I'm trying to persuade people why they should see my point of view by using logical arguments. If it turns out that consensus is to keep this article, I'd like to know why my logical interpretation of policy was wrong in the eyes of the community. If having a Yahoo Group and being in active development qualify as making a piece of software notable, I'd like to know why -- that's it. If you don't want to respond to my criticism of your reasons, that's fine. CryptoDerk 23:35, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Crypto, you surely are trying to debate. However, to do a good job at it you need to address all six of my points, not just two :)
- Duk 00:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I only brought up the two in my most recent comment to not beat a dead horse. To say that I didn't address others previously is not true, as I have addressed 5 of the 6 in my prior comments. The only one I haven't addressed is the comparison to birds, which I don't consider a valid comparison because I could just as easily make comparisons to other things in my favor (e.g. we don't have articles about every song ever written, etc.).
- I am criticizing the merits of this article in comparison with other articles on programming languages and written policy. If you want to show this is notable, please tell me where either policy or several instances of precedence shows why "having a tutorial", why "having a yahoo group", etc. makes this notable. Or, back to one of my previous responses: show me that this has been used to develop some widely used pieces of software or that it's had a major influence on an industry. Since you've already stated you do not want to get into a debate, and as such you have not responded to them, consider these requests rhetorical. CryptoDerk 01:00, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, advertising. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If/when it becomes notable, we may have an article on it then. Until then, no. Otherwise, we may as well have an article for every baby born because it may be notable. --Improv 22:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable BASIC variant. — Gwalla | Talk 02:25, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable software project. This is not freshmeat.net. jni 08:37, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't agree that any of Duk's supplied reasons make it notable. And I strongly disagree, in general, with the argument that we should keep something because (in someone's opinion) it might increase in popularity at some point in the future. Well and good: if and when it does become popular enough to be notable, someone can make an article. For now, it's just another Basic implementation among thousands, and we really don't need articles on them all.
- Delete. Agree with User:Pnot (and others but he said it very well). Andrewa 14:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, but I'd like Duk's vote preserved in Weird ideas of what makes something notable -- GWO 17:51, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Interesting anomoly and relevant in the context of other BASIC articles. 80.255 18:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)