Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VALGOL programming language

VALGOL programming language, SIMPLE programming language, SLOBOL programming language, LAIDBACK, Sartre programming language, FIFTH programming language, C- programming language, LITHP programming language, DOGO programming language

... is a fictional programming language invented by John Unger Zussman as a spoof of ... and San Fernando Valley slang (valspeak). It appears in a humorous list of "lesser known languages", published in InfoWorld in 1982 and later posted to Usenet. This is the original text pertaining to ...:

Oh my... —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable programming languages. --SYCTHOS^talk 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Joke programming languages or similar. These are an important part of computer humor culture. You are obviously taking them too seriously. --ZeroOne 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...important part of computer humor culture. Evidence? I can't find it. And don't find them particularly funny no. —Ruud 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on your definition of "important" ... it's widely known at any rate. Try this search. At least 100 hits for VALGOL, including grammars, derivative works, compiler implementations, mentions in other sources. A lot of it is just references to the same material but that does show notability. That it is not particularly funny is not particularly relevant to whether it's part of a culture or not. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• weak merge (and conditional on finding a place to merge it to). RJFJR 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) on further consideration I retract voting either way. RJFJR 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and wasting our time. —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom unless claims of being "important part of computer humor culture" can be substantiated. VegaDark 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to WikiSource; barring that, merge all and redirect to InfoWorld joke languages or delete. Usenet publishing is public-domain, isn't it? The articles describe interesting languages, I'm just not sure they're encyclopedic. --bmills 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These articles aren't causing anyone any problems. Let them be. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KramarDanIkabu 05:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - these are all entries from a single mag article?! worst case, merge them all. (No need to transwiki this anywhere, unlike the source code articles). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-25 05:47Z
• Delete Yup, I saw these ages ago, didn't want to AfD because there's that many articles and AFDing them is a lot of work, coincidentally I was going to go prodding these today seeing how there's a lot of esoteric languages in prod and no one's really contesting those... anyway, the point of the ramble is: Delete the lot. These are joke languages. It's an old joke, it's a well-known joke (included in the fortune(6) database at least in Linux), but I really don't think it's a notable joke and you can't get much more fun out of it than just the quotations out of the mag article. Certainly the heck not worth making separate articles for each! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete perhaps a mention in Internet humor (or such), but certainly not separate articles. Camillus (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this cruft per WP:NFT Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge them in one article. --Tone 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Either Keep or Merge into one article. Old joke, but well known... people have written grammars for some of these languages. This comment is NOT under any circumstances to be interpreted as straight delete without at least a merge. I remember reading about these back in the 80s... an InfoWorld article is, with all respect to my esteemed colleauge JzG, not something made up in school one day. ++Lar: t/c 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No offense to the person that wrote the grammar, but it could easily have been done in "one school day". It's still nothing more than an extended joke. The grammar wasn't that well-thought out, e.g. "Y*KNOW" translates to the multiplication of Y times KNOW, which is not what the valleyspeak intends. If we merge them all we have to delete the giant quotes to avoid reconstructing the Infoworld article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-25 19:39Z
• Delete ALL as unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)