Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curly bracket programming language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) at 11:07, 13 May 2010 (Closing debate, result was redirect to List of programming languages by category#Curly-bracket languages ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 11:07, 13 May 2010 by DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) (Closing debate, result was redirect to List of programming languages by category#Curly-bracket languages )
- 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 redirect to List of programming languages by category#Curly-bracket languages . Consensus appears to redirect (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curly bracket programming language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see why we should have an article about programming languages that use a particular set of delimiters. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm broadly with Sarek. "Curly bracket programming language" doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic for programming languages, and usage of the term "curly bracket programming language" in reliable sources seems to be rather lacking. But, wouldn't it be reasonable to place a redirect to List of programming languages by category#Curly-bracket languages here?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to do... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You happy to withdraw the nomination and redirect it instead, Sarek? Cos if so we can close this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to wait a bit and see what other people think first. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You happy to withdraw the nomination and redirect it instead, Sarek? Cos if so we can close this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't be an unreasonable thing to do... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge and redirect to block (programming), in which case off-side rule should get the same treatment for consistency. It seems to be a valid categorization in some rather non-academic sources, e.g. [1] some "for dummies" books, but there are hardly any sources that get into this level of detailed trivialities. The main issue with this article is that contains spades of wp:or, and I don't think there are reliable sources making even half the comparative observations or inferences made in this article. There was also an associated category for this article, but it has been deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_2#Category:Curly_bracket_programming_languages. We still have an article on Off-side rule; perhaps there was a category as well, can't find it now. Both these articles treat the same topic: the syntax for blocks. Pcap ping 02:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Delete, or merge and redirect per Marshall and Sarek. David V Houston (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2010 (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.