Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZOMBIE programming language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mo0 (talk | contribs) at 04:31, 20 December 2005 (→[[ZOMBIE programming language]]: Result was DELETE.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 04:31, 20 December 2005 by Mo0 (talk | contribs) (→[[ZOMBIE programming language]]: Result was DELETE.)
- 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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fictional programming language, and the more specific you make a Google search for it, the less hits you get. To the point where, if you include the supposed acronym in full you get a couple of blogs and nothing else. It looks a lot like vanity to me, and with only one source and no obvious independent informed discussion it also looks like original research and quite likely unverifiable as well. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and BJAODN ;-) - N (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one-off original research. Gazpacho 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek 04:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (though I'm definitely in favor of BJAODNing it!) the big key issue here being the fact that it describes itself as an "unimplemented" language. Speaking of which, someone bloody well ought to go through Category:Esoteric programming languages - there's definitely some more that are "unimplemented" too, especially the ones that were described in some joke article ages ago and someone decided to create an article for every single one of them. Anyway, if this gets nuked, I hope that's a precedent enough to say that "unimplemented" languages are not yet notable enough to have an article. (At least spend an afternoon cursing at Perl to get an interpreter done, okay, folks?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 04:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this will probably get deleted, I already put it in BJAODN. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Category:Esoteric programming languages undoubtedly needs a review (and List of esoteric programming languages is certainbly redundant per the category). Most of these really belong on some other Wiki. I'm going through them in no particular order, if you want to join in see User:Just zis Guy, you know?/Esoteric, starting with the ones where there is no proof of their actually being implemented at all. I suspect that most of them have no provable user base. This is all good fun for those with altogether too much time on their hands, but it does not belong here. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per wwwwolf. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd vote to keep it, but I won't fight its deletion if we agree to delete other unimplemented esoteric programming languages such as 0x29A and 4DL. I saw that Morgan-Mar's other languages were included in Wikipedia, and decided to write the ZOMBIE entry - the article itself was not meant to be a bad joke. :_( IronSwallow 20:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's amusing content, but not encyclopaedic. I'm sure there must be a wiki somewhere which would welcome it with open arms. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:43, 16 December 2005 (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.