Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2L programming language

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. —Centrx→talk • 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2L programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete derivative nn cruft. Once you have seen P′′ (which is cool), you have seen all of these "languages". Leibniz 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no demonstrated notability.--Isotope23 20:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been many previous esoteric programming language-related AfDs, often with mass nominations. Not all of the following will be relevant, but many may be.

Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.

Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:

No result Votes for Deletion (multiple nomations), September 29 2004
Keep Votes for Deletion (Lazy K), November 26 2004
Delete Articles for Deletion (Obfuscated Weird Language), August 22 2005
Delete 1, keep 2 Articles for Deletion (3 languages), February 24 2006
No result Articles for Deletion (4 languages), February 24 2006
No consensus Articles for Deletion (3 languages), April 5 2006
Delete most Articles for Deletion (multiple nominations), August 31 2006
Overturn and relist Deletion Review, September 7 2006

--ais523 15:47, 18 September 2006 (U T C)

Delete - already merged whilst the concept of overloading by direction is interesting, it's technically nothing new, and not something that new works would be based upon. Lack of verification is an issue. LinaMishima 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, already merged. Kappa 06:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Already merged. --ais523 11:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - What the fuck has it been merged to, can someone actually explain their votes? And if it is already merged, why then, is Kappa voting Speedy Keep? Has something been merged here? What is Ais523 suggesting we redirect to? - Hahnchen 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you read the penultimate debate in my modified {{multidel}} above, you'll see that User:LinaMishima is planning to merge all the minor esolangs to List of esoteric programming languages, in which case the history is needed for copyright reasons, which is why I'm advocating a redirect. --ais523 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    - Yeah, I figured that out. But as I've now commented on other AFDs for esolangs, if these are not used, not notable, and just something invented at school in one day, then they shouldn't even be on the list, as they are nothing beyond a nerdjoke. Speedy Keep is still a ridiculous vote, given the reasoning which suggests a delete or redirect. - Hahnch e n 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Anything of worth is covered in Brainfuck. No assertion of anything. Speedy Keep is the stupidest vote I've seen. - Hahnch e n 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedia material. The external link doesn't work. RickReinckens 05:33, 28 September 2006 (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.