Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo (programming language)

Apollo (programming language)

Procedural nomination. Article was improperly designated for speedy deletion. Not entirely clear this programming language exists given the lack of references. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial variation of brainfuck; I can't find any references on it outside of Wikipedia and its clones. The article is written in an unencyclopedic ironic tone (the "basic readability problem" that this language "solves" is that brainfuck can actually be read) that doesn't help, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is: would it make sense to redirect to brainfuck? After all, there's no solid evidence that this thing even exist. As for the ironic tone, it is indeed an ominous sign, but on the other hand, brainfuck is itself more or less an inside joke. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only support a redirect if we can find some actual secondary sources about the language. As it is, I can't even find primary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article history (and talk) suggests the article to be a joke. No sources, no Google hits to find any, and no mention of notability whatsoever. There are a zillion copycats of brainfuck out there; only significant ones go on here. The others can please go do themselves the Turing way. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 08:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein and Jafet --SJK (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete either a hoax or a minor variation on an essentially unusable joke language. No sources, no notability, no evidence of use, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a hoax -- either that, or an extraordinarily well-kept secret. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom either a hoax or such a minor variation that it is not worth noting anyhow. RFerreira (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]