Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programming Without Coding Technology

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. BJ^Talk 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Programming Without Coding Technology

Delete promotional article about a programming development system. This is clearly an advert, including phrases such as "It's Very fun like a game", and an internet search yields just a few hits, which is indicative of lack of notability in this particular field. Mind matrix 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWith respect to the first point 1 - It's really fun like a game, in scientific point of view because games are based on interaction, and programming without coding too, are based on interaction Programming without coding classified under multi-topics including Programming Languages, AI, Compiler & Games

With respect to the second point 1 - In the real world, there is lack of resource related to programming without coding, and this project (Programming Without Coding Technology) presented to reduce the gap in this field and present programming without coding to the real world as full replacement for coding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on lack of verifiability from multiple reliable 3rd party sources which cover the subject in a non-trivial manner. It does in fact read like an advert and use "Weasel words". Although WP:COI is not a reason for deletion I'd encourage the above user (referenced in the article itself) to please review that policy as well as the ones for notability and verifiability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have already edited the article, removing words like "IT's very fun"

The source of this article is an open source project hosted on sourceforge (http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/doublesvsoop)

I removed my name from the article

I think now, there is no problems

Could you review the article again, and remove the speedy for deletion mark ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policies. The article isn't marked for speedy deletion. The sources aren't reliable 3rd party sources (per the verifiability policy). And your name appearing in the article or not doesn't change the fact that you have an apparent conflict of interest that may be colouring your judgement in a way not beneficial to the project or to the article in question. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i will change the resources to be just one resource (the project website on sourceforge) Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. Please read the policies I've pointed out. Removing sources isn't going to help you need to provide more (specifically ones that conform to the verifiability policy).Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a vanity piece with no second or third party sources to assert any kind of notability which the third paragraph all but admits. --neon white talk 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI have already updated the article 1) adding (Hello world example without coding - using Screen Shots of PWCT) 2) i removed the third paragraph 3) Is this help ?, or there are problems ?

Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are problems. Please, please, please have a look at the relevant policies (I placed a nice note on your talkpage and everything). Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then, could someone modify the article to avoid these problems ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could except you are the only person that appears to know about the subject so you should probably review the policies and correct the problems that have been already pointed out to you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are with the lack of sources existing to assert notability, if these cannot be found then there is little that can be done with the article. Wikipedia has criteria for what subjects may be included specified here. --neon white talk 18:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After reading the article, I'm still not sure what this is really about. At the very least programing without coding is a contradiction of terms. For the most part this appears to be a vanity article on some obscure non-notable semi-educational tool or something. --T-rex 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the project is about programming via a visual GUI that doesnt involve a user having to write code, however the nature of the subject is not relevent to it's notability. It's a largely unknown (15 ghits only) open source project. --neon white talk 18:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i have updated the article, i hope that now everything is fine ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this article is that there aren't any secondary sources describing the Programming Without Coding Technology. Without them, the article is deemed original research and is against Wikipedia guidelines, so it must be deleted. I suggest that you keep all the work you've done in this article and publish it as documentation in the sourceforge page of your project.[1] Diego (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not the original research the article source is (Programming Without Coding Technology Help - 220 Pages) and every one can get these documents after downloading the software from sourceforge Is this everything, or i still need to do somthing ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and hopefully for the final time. Please read these policies notability, verifiability, Conflict of Interest. Make sure the article complies and you won't have to do anything else. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now guys, is there a need to be so rude? You could help by telling him what the rule means in short, instead of making him read piles of legalese to find it out. Diego (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud: your project must be famous before it gets a Wikipedia page. That's why it's getting deleted. You should talk about it in Freshmeat and other technical sites to get people know it, Wikipedia is not the right place for this. Diego (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research and a neologism with no showing of particular notability. Inventing vague new management philosophies for managing computer programmers seems to be a growth industry. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

At first with respect to project name there is no contradiction because programming is not coding, programming is a goal, and coding is a method to achieve that goal you can look at http://expresscode.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/coding-vs-programming/

With respect to freshmate, my project works only on MS-Windows and freshmate doesn't accept projects that works only on MS-Windows

With respect to other resources refer to the project it's well known in the xharbour community

1 - http://www.xharbour.org/index.asp?page=product/thirdparty you will find a link to the project under the name (Mahmoud DoubleS (Super Server) Framework)

2 - http://www.xharbour.com/xhc/index.asp?page=xhc_download.asp&show_h=8&show_i=8&show_sub=2 you will find an abstract for the project for download

3 - http://www.the-holms.org/xharbour/addon.htm you will find a link to the project under the name (doublesvsoop)

Also on sourceforge [ 06/08/2008 (dd/mm/yyyy) ] my project rank is 134 of (more than 130,000 projects) with active percentage = 99.94%

i hope that this is what is required ?

Greetings, Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out countless times, the project has not been covered in second party reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your work. --neon white talk 16:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same article, published on www.codeproject.com at this link http://www.codeproject.com/KB/winsdk/programmingwithoucoding.aspx is codeproject considered as second party reliable sources ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you wrote the article, and you aren't independent of the subject of the article. Any reliable sources used to indicate notability must be independent of the project. Silverfish (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant advertising and a non-starter of an idea anyway. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (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.