Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuck (programming language)

Stuck (programming language)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find enough significant reliable coverage for this programming language. Given the common name, it's possible there may have been mentions that I may have missed, so if coverage exists there, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing around on the code-golf section of Stack Overflow and noticed that many submissions were written in a language called Stuck. Apparently, a language developed to write Python in as few characters (bytes) as possible. Of course I went to Wikipedia to find out more, but to my surprise, no page. The documentation that I have found so far is a wikipage on esolangs.org describing the syntax, and a git-book that goes more in depth. If you check out Stack Overflow, you will see a lot of people using it, so I assume I am definitely not the first person to turn to Wikipedia to find a blank page. Let me see if I can dig up better docs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMolter (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the git-hub code.

The language was originally developed by a stack exchange user (screenname Shebang) and the author describes how the interpreter works in the following forum post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMolter (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are primary and thus do not contribute to notability. Googling turned up nothing helpful. WP is not for things made up one day. Msnicki (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree, its short on secondary sources, but there are secondary sources. Further, having seen it more than once on SE, its not really a 'made up in one day' sort of thing. Other esoteric languages get their spot on [the esoteric language page] and many have their own independent page despite being equally obscure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.176.1.33 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]