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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Pascal[edit]

Modern Pascal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-encyclopedical and promotional article about hardly notable proprietary software. Andrej Shadura (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Andrej Shadura (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was about to say that whoever wrote this article lacks basic programming knowledge when I saw the notes on the talk page. So, it's maintained by the owners of this software. In such case there is little point in trying to improve it. The article is saying that the subject doesn't need Apache or IIS. The same can be said about any programming language. The website mentions that the subject is a scripting engine for Apache... Later on the article is saying that the subject is no longer a simple scripting engine because it supports external libraries. Comparing the subject to Java was really bold. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There are only two references in the article; one is to the developer's web site and the other is a blog post by the developer. By a Google search I have not been able to find a single reliable source discussing the language, only forum posts and passing mentions that don't contribute to notability. On the article talk page, the developer himself said (just a few months ago in February 2021) that the language "does not have much 'online reference'" and that "once finished and accepted", their customers "may publish product information, allowing us to reference full third-party opinion". So apparently even the language developer is unaware of any in-depth coverage of the language in reliable sources. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. CodeTalker (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article needs a rewrite by someone without a COI, but there aren't enough additional sources of information to do one. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG. OCLC 22190678 notes existence of an academic report on it, but is unpublished. WIKINIGHTS _talk 02:06, 13 August 2021 (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.