Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CobolScript

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 Delete. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CobolScript

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

This article has been tagged for sources and notability since October 2011, but there is still no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only thing cited in the article that could be regarded an an independent reliable source is one paper presented at a conference, not enough on its own to establish notability. A Google search produced mainly download sites, blogs, wikis, etc etc. (The article was deleted via PROD in October 2013, but has since been restored because an editor asked if he or she could see the deleted content.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sources that would not seem to come from the authors, not even anything about use of this language in production. I would happily merge this article into COBOL § Legacy (or potential Influence section at the bottom), be any secondary sources found. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into COBOL § Legacy. Jarble (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it can't be merged until there are sources ti establish WP:WEIGHT of the subject within the target article. Primary sources – all that we have right now – are not enough for that. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a well established programming language and I think due to it's nature passes WP:GNG. I thought it was brand new, i.e. >2-3 years old, but it's been on the go since the turn of the century. It's so unusual as an offshoot from an extremely venerable dev. language. scope_creep talk 15:35 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Strong Delete. (I would have just said "Delete", but I think my reasoning is just as good as the preceding comment!) I hadn't heard of CobolScript until today (and I'm reasonably familiar with a very wide range of languages), but my immediate thought was "Ah, a scripting language for the COBOL community; that should be interesting...". Unfortunately, although this language has indeed been around since the turn of the century, it doesn't seem to have developed a user base. Like Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, I have not been able to find evidence of serious programming being done in CobolScript. There are a lot of links available to sites promoting the language, but these seem to be closely linked to a single company. Without a greater variety of sources or evidence of some sort of user-base it's hard to believe that CobolScript is notable. I suspect it falls into the category of "slightly cool languages that have been presented at conferences, but then are never heard from again". If we turn out to be wrong on this, and CobolScript later develops a following, we can always re-create this article then, but for now the only thing that is lost by a deletion is the imprimatur of a Wikipedia link on the language promoter's website. RomanSpa (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2014 (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.