Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackensen (talk | contribs) at 22:21, 11 September 2006 (→[[Befreak programming language]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 22:21, 11 September 2006 by Mackensen (talk | contribs) (→[[Befreak programming language]])
- 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 Arrrrghhhhhh! Too many to list up here, please see each subjection for the result of each discussion. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Esoteric programming languages
First of all I would like to apologize for nominating such a large number of articles at once. I have tried nominating articles separately in the past, but these often attracted people who wanted to keep the article reasoning that "maybe someone finds this useful, one article can't hurt" without realizing the scale of the problem we face here. I have spent a good studying the esoteric language scene several hours preparing this AfD. I can well image that you are not willing to an equal amount of time just to decide what to vote; may I suggest that you just pick a few of the articles at random and investigate whether or not the arguments I present below hold for those articles. Cheers, —Ruud 05:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The biggest problem that the subjects of articles I've nominated here suffer from is what we often call non-notability, a fuzzy term that I will try to formalize a bit. When I call an esoteric language "non-notable", I mean that, except for the author's website, no sources on that language exist. This has several consequences, which will in the end lead to the conclusion that articles on these languages should not be included in Wikipedia, but are better left for a more specialized website like the Esolang Wiki. First of all, having only one source means that the article can never be more informative that that source itself, and therefore, that the handful of people interested in that language will be equally, if not better, served by the website of the author. Secondly, if for some reason the website of the author would disappear from the Internet there would be no sources left, and we would have to delete the respective Wikipedia article as well per WP:V. Finally, most of these articles have little prospect to grow beyond the stubs they are, as the description given of them on the author's website is more often than not very concise. To summarize: with few exceptions, these articles belong on the Esolang Wiki, just like obscure Star Trek facts belong on MemoryAlpha. A few of the more interesting ones could briefly be mentioned in the esoteric programming languages article.
- Unlike what some people may expect, it is a relatively trivial task to create a new esoteric language to any moderately skilled programmer: definitely not much harder than writing another piece of software, building a website or forming a band. This would have two undesirable consequences if we would allow these articles be included on Wikipedia. Firstly, the number of articles on esoteric languages on Wikipedia a fraction of those on the Esolang Wiki and nearly all of the articles are about about languages invented between 2000 and 2005. Imagine how much more of them there could be in a few years time, all making it more difficult for the reader to find the few encyclopedic articles that do exist. Secondly, anyone could just write a few new languages, some isomorphic to Brainfuck or Befunge, a few slightly more original, and then promote them on Wikipedia, maybe going as far as to create article, or have an article created on himself, being assured that it will not be deleted as he is now notable to a hand full of people.
That said, I believe the following should without a doubt be kept: Befunge, Brainfuck, FALSE, INTERCAL, Malbolge, Unlambda and Kvikkalkul programming language (Usenet joke, notable enough to appear in the jargon file and FOLDOC), and that it is probably not worth deleting Chef (being featured in a MIT Mystery Hunt), Shakespear (Slashdot coverage), Var'aq (some notability, perhaps thanks to being listed in Eric S. Raymond's Retrocomputing Museum) and Whitespace (Slashdot coverage). —Ruud 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Language
- Bolded entries are the languages I consider notable enough for inclusion.
- Author
- Bolded entries are authors who are somewhat better known in the esolang community (but have little chance of passing WP:BIO.)
- Based on
- What the language is based on according to the author. Gives a good impression of which languages are influential.
- In
- Incoming links according to Google (not counting self-links and link from Wikipedia.)
- Hits
- The number of unique Google returns when searching on
language name "programming language" -wikipedia -encyclopedia -dictionary. The usually returns a large number of false positives. If the number is bolded this indicates there where a significant number of relevant hits. - J/F/R
- Whether or not the language is listed in FOLDOC, the Jargon file or Eric S. Raymond's website.
Overall comments
- Previous AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related (for some reason still unclosed). --ais523 11:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure on the status of this page - is it actually an AfD? Anyway when you say "delete" would you wipe all traces of the info? A quick remark on "Ook!" would seem appropriate at Forth, for instance. I agree that they don't necessarily warrant their own articles. Stevage 22:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete most: I completely agree (with the few exceptions I've noted below), and I say this as an author of one of the pages (SNUSP), and creator and implementor of other esoteric languages. With the exception of the more influential languages you've mentioned, these can be classified as either research or vanity projects. Also to note, the Esolang wiki did not exist at the time many of these pages were created; now that it does exist, that is where they should live. Prior to deletion here, their content should be merged to that wiki. --IanOsgood 20:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. This is ridiculous, I'm not going to paste keep in each section below. These should be nominated one at a time. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 00:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I disagree with the hit results. If you remove "programming language" from the google search for brainfuck you get 731 results. [48] If you look at them you can see they are all related to the language. Rather than deleting all of these articles I belive one massive esoteric languages article might be the way to go. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. Agree with Ravedave. Incidentally, I'm kind of surprised to see Thue and Unlambda on the hit list. --maru (talk) contribs 01:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. Note that while Thue and Unlambda are in the chart created by the nom, they are not actually included in this AfD. Resolute 03:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I came here through an AFD notice on Thue. --maru (talk) contribs 03:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, and so you did. It appears that only Unlambda and the other bolded entries in the nom's chart are not up for deletion. Resolute 04:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I came here through an AFD notice on Thue. --maru (talk) contribs 03:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "that it is probably not worth deleting Chef (being featured in a MIT Mystery Hunt)" As the creator of the Chef programming language (the language, not the article - I have never edited the article), I am not offering an opinion on its deletion, but I would like to point out that the Piet programming language is significantly more notable than Chef. Piet has been featured in the commercial puzzle card game Perplex City, and has no doubt been seen by many thousands more people than Chef. It also generates about 10 times as many emails to me than Chef does (anecdotal evidence, to be sure). My point is that if Chef is retained for noteriety reasons because of the MIT Mystery Hunt, Piet certainly deserves to be retained. If, on the other hand, Piet deserves to be deleted, then Chef certainly deserves to be deleted too. I am advocating neither deletion nor retention because of the potential conflict of interest, merely pointing out a fact. I am happy to have the articles deleted (or kept) if that is the decision. -dmmaus 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. NN, this programming stuff is going nuts on here. Just because it's an internet encyclopedia doesn't mean it should overly focus on computer stuff.-Kmaguir1 06:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - impractical AfD - relist:
- This AfD currently consists of a large number of programming languages that have been classified as esoteric. However a quick scan through the articles reveals that some are...
- Stubs, with no details on where to find more information,
- Stubs, with the needed imformation,
- Stubs, with the a simple description of the language,
- or occasionally, Actual articles
- To collect such a diverse range of article types together into a single huge AfD makes decision making nearly impossible, and restricts voting to those who are either highly keen on blanket deletion, or highly keen on blanket keeping to be the most involved, as there hence exists a massive time commitment to accurately assess each any every article's merit. It should be noted that AfD is about the assessment of merit, not voting, and so anything which detracts from the reasoned evaluation of all articles included is fairly bad form in my opinion.
- It should also be noted that different editors google-test differently - I find myself wondering what the google hit figures would be like if forums were removed from the results (which is my personal practice). I also strongly dislike any cries of 'non-notable', since this is by definition subjective, and often a lack of references is present (which is a far more easily agreed to problem). I know this to be true in the case of several of the above!
- I would strongly suggest relisting this AfD using the above suggested article type groupings or similar, and ideally then breaking it down further into those languages derived from a similar principle. At this point, bold merging may well emerge as the more sensible solution in many cases (as it will be apparent that the details can be merged into the parent langauge). LinaMishima 04:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD currently consists of a large number of programming languages that have been classified as esoteric. However a quick scan through the articles reveals that some are...
- additional several of the articles listed have had no consensus or keep AfD verdicts before, and the listing of these in any later AfDs tends to be useful. Again, the size of the list makes it a non-trivial last to perform. LinaMishima 05:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete most if not all, most if some language is voted keep in the following discussions. —Jared Hunt August 31, 2006, 07:55 (UTC)
- Keep most Some of these probably don't belong on Wikipedia. Request that they aren't deleted until I've exported the lot (much of this potentially looks like it belongs at the Esolang wiki, but due to licensing they can't be transiwikied, so I'll see what isn't on Esolang already and write stubs there). Some obviously belong here, and this AfD will probably be abandoned due to the complicatedness of the listing. --ais523 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all non-bolded, with profgound thanks to Ruud for finally lancing this festering sore. The continued existence of these articles is due almost exclusively to systemic bias; if they were esoteric webtoons or some other such we would have nuked them ages ago. I guess there might be some merit in collecting those which have non-trivial sources into a single list article, but that's probably asking for trouble and in any case is likely better suited to Wikinfo. Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. Why are some comments including delete "votes" here from March, and some from this week? --kingboyk 14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- because this editor has been working on this project for some time, and some of us were aware of it back then and commented then. I need to review what I said then, I'm perhaps more deletionist these days than I was then. But it's rather a job to do that, isn't it. I sympathise with R for wanting to package this up neatly (as I did with lists of malls a while back)... i sympathise with editors who are not sure if they have time to do all the commenting needed. Personally I'd love it of some angel or another turned up and started merging these articls together till we got down to a small set but... probably not going to happen. ++Lar: t/c 16:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the link provided I get 17,700 GHits for Brainfuck, not 299. --kingboyk 14:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete most, keep a few. As an esoteric programming fan and the creator of one of these languages (Kipple) I still agree that most of these don't really belong here. The Esolang wiki was created for this reason. I agree with the short list of languages to keep, and would like to add Thue and Piet. I have voted keep on those two below. I didn't bother to write delete on all the others, but I wouldn't mind if they are deleted. --Runeberge 16:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some, merge some There is far too many entries here to deal with this appropriately. Some articles, namely those with references and more than just a brief descriptive line, probably have a case for being kept. The rest can simply be merged into List of esoteric programming languages. LinaMishima 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete most or all. Create or update a page on esoteric languages highlighting tricks on which they are based (there are just few, if one manages to get through the syntax). Personally I do not see any language from the list as notable enough - individual articles for IOCCC winners would be more educative and may have an history attached (e.g. the tinycc predecessor was one such winner). Pavel Vozenilek 00:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep most - some seem rather non-notable, but most are (in my opinion) quite acceptable. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep almost all - This bewildering combined AfD seems entirely improper. Probably nothing listed here is of really great importance, but as long as they have enough description to indicate the general type of language, and an implementation exists (and is linked to), it's better to have them than not. If a hundred separate fictional characters in some popular book or movie can each have an article, surely even an obscure PL can have one. In any case, end this AfD and relist each one individually... this is trying to be an AfD on an entire conceptual category of information, not on the individual articles. LotLE×talk 03:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that you and a few others above don't quite understand the point of breaking it down. Each aarticle is to be decided separately. The bulk placement was for convenience and to make it clear what the scale of the porblem was. JoshuaZ 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oh no, I understand that quite well. The couple dozen languages here are absolutely nothing compared to many other even less notable families of articles. How many separate articles are there on Star Trek characters that had one line in some episode of DS9 (or similarly for Tolkein and many other fictional worlds)? I'd certainly be happy to see mass deletion of a lot of things along those... or better yet, mass redirection to some aggregate "List of characters in <whatever>". But it wouldn't be right to create an unanswerable joint AfD on every single such character (which would often number a lot more than this moderate list of programming languages). LotLE×talk 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But they aren't a mass deletion that is "unanswerable" they are merely grouped together for convenience. Each will be decided on its own merits. As you can see, people have gone through and picked out a few and commented on those individuals. Each will then be deleted or kept or whatevered based on its individual consensus. I fail to see the issue here. JoshuaZ 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's another approach that I think would be reasonable: {prod} each article you think can be deleted without objection... if this very AfD has not spoiled that possibility. If no one thinks an article is worth making the slightest peep in favor of, that's probably a sign it's fine to go. But a {prod} puts a low threshhold of letting any editor ask for more consideration. I'm not attached individually to any one of these, I just find the procedure disturbing. LotLE×talk 04:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your recommendation to be bold. I am going to start merging articles. My plan:
- Redirect all brainfuck derivatives to Brainfuck. Add a section there explaining the proliferation of derivatives, list them, and link to the Esolang wiki Brainfuck_derivatives category.
- Thanks for your recommendation to be bold. I am going to start merging articles. My plan:
- "Add a section"? That section has existed at Brainfuck for a long time. DanielCristofani 06:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all two-dimensional languages to Befunge. Add a section there listing the derivatives and link to the Esolangs 2D-language category.
- Merge content for the unreferenced languages onto the author's user page with a recommendation to reference or rewrite for the Esolangs wiki.
- Edit the backlinks (usually just the List of esoteric programming languages) to point to the language's home page instead (or if none, the relevant Esolangs wiki page).
- Add a note somewhere recommending that new esoteric language articles be put on the Esolangs wiki unless otherwise notable so we don't have to go through this every couple of years. (Where, the esoteric programming language discussion page?)
- That should reduce this list by half. I'll sit on this until the weekend in case you think this is too bold. --IanOsgood 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, am entirely supportive of IanOsgood's plans (especially of the fact it's him doing the work rather than me :-)). I don't think some one-person derivative of, e.g., Brainfuck needs more than a line and a link describing it; but on the chance someone is looking for that, at least they're directed to an article where that line and link occurs. I'm not sure, however, just how much we should rely on another Wiki: link to it, sure; but not treat that other site as if it were just more WP articles (i.e. ask "If esolangs is discontinued next month, are these WP articles still useful?") LotLE×talk 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heard that. I will use the homepage for the language instead, but mention at the top of the language list that complete articles for most of the languages can be found on the Esolangs wiki. I'm going to start with the stubbiest articles and work from there. Here goes... --IanOsgood 17:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to take the fact that I'm having this work immediately reverted that this issue hasn't settled yet. I'll wait another week before I try any other merging. In the interests of moving forward, what is the estimated effort to turn this project into the suggested 50-odd individual page deletion projects? --IanOsgood 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that you are not merging, you are redirecting links away from the article and to the website. Although the website contains the material, merging implies that little information is lost from wikipedia. In this case, that could have been achieved by adding a single (in some cases additional) sentance, perhaps two. LinaMishima 22:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the one line summary already provided (or which I added) suffices for a non-notable variation on an esolang. Seriously, Brainfork is Brainfuck with one change; Braintwist is Brainfuck with one change. It is the reason we want to delete these articles in the first place! If someone wants the gory details, go to the website or Esolang wiki. If wikipedia is willing to host these kind of details, then prepare for a huge influx of more esolangs; on average, there are a couple created on the Esolang wiki every week! --IanOsgood 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a separate issue whether retaining trivia adds signal or noise to Wikipedia as a whole. I'll need to read up some more about this community's standards. --IanOsgood 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is that you are not merging, you are redirecting links away from the article and to the website. Although the website contains the material, merging implies that little information is lost from wikipedia. In this case, that could have been achieved by adding a single (in some cases additional) sentance, perhaps two. LinaMishima 22:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I, for one, am entirely supportive of IanOsgood's plans (especially of the fact it's him doing the work rather than me :-)). I don't think some one-person derivative of, e.g., Brainfuck needs more than a line and a link describing it; but on the chance someone is looking for that, at least they're directed to an article where that line and link occurs. I'm not sure, however, just how much we should rely on another Wiki: link to it, sure; but not treat that other site as if it were just more WP articles (i.e. ask "If esolangs is discontinued next month, are these WP articles still useful?") LotLE×talk 17:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep most, merge others: On one side, I don't think that having these articles on Wikipedia makes it less encyclopedic, the fact that there are probably more articles on esoteric languages than even on cities and towns in my country is obviously unavoidable, and deleting esoteric language articles is not going to automatically increase the count of other (possibly more useful) articles. On the other hand, I think that esoteric languages is a very interesting topic that deserves being on an encyclopedia. I actually proposed Wikipedia as a source for learning about them on a programming language design course I was a teacher's assistant for. IMHO, most languages, even the most obscure ones must be kept, and some others should be merged, like all the Brainfuck clones and variants out there. Oskilian 04:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a while back, user:ZeroOne put many of his pages into public domain to aid transferring them to the the Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep all on purely procedural grounds. As much as I sympathize with the nominator trying to deal with a lot of borderline notable toy languages, this is just not the right solution. Each deletion should be AfD'd separately. Or alternately, nominator (or someone else) could be bold and merge together related minor languages (say, Programming languages derived from unlambda, etc). LotLE×talk 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I removed this exact comment from every single specific language (and moved it up here). That was just rude spam - did you even bother reading any of the articles? 203.213.7.133 12:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- counter comment Arguably, this entire AfD is rude. Lulu commented on all of these that they have been nominated in a manner not proportialal to due process, and they is quite right in saying this. This collection of AfDs strongly discourages due checking for merit, and much of the arguments being used involve the idea that wikipedia should rely on on third party websites to host information - which is a bad call in my opinion. I would argue that most people voting are not doing any evaluation of any of the articles, meerly voting 'delete' LinaMishima 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I've done a lot of work checking these languages out! The consensus I'm hearing from the esolang experts (user:ais523, User:Graue, myself, user:Runeberge, user:ZeroOne, but user:dmmaus abstaining) is that these articles would not have appeared on Wikipedia in the first place had there been another forum for them. In fact, that is why the Esolang wiki was created. Now that it is present, esoteric languages which really should not have stuck around on Wikipedia due to being research or not notable would have friendlier reception there. (I'm hesitant to be too bold about this myself since I'm relatively new here. The wiki I'm used to has a much lighter-weight deletion process.) --IanOsgood 22:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I removed this exact comment from every single specific language (and moved it up here). That was just rude spam - did you even bother reading any of the articles? 203.213.7.133 12:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (dedent) Comment. I definitely appreciate that IanOsgood has taken a lot of effort to look at the invidual pages. But I very strongly object to the anonymous editor who took my comment off each individual article. I was trying to make it clear that just as almost the same set of "delete" votes exists on each individual language named, so should general "keep" comments be applied to each. Anonymous deletion of votes is VERY BAD. LotLE×talk 02:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - esoteric programming languages as a general topic seem to me to be notable, and the specifics seem to me a useful resource of examples. Furthermore, mass nomination is always a bad way to go about articles that require specific discussion. Phil Sandifer 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a mass nomination. Each one is being given individual discussion below. JoshuaZ 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Chef isn't the only one of the languages to be featured in the MIT mystery hunt ([49]). The languages referenced look to me like Malbolge, Unlambda, brainfuck, RUBE, one of the image-based languages (possibly Piet), a language I don't recognize offhand (can someone help?), Befunge, another language I don't recognize offhand, and Chef. I don't know whether this is an argument for keeping or deletion. --ais523 15:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- comment I do support deletion on most of these, but I think that this AfD is a bad idea. I believe that we should instead establish inclusion guidelines for esoteric languages, and then have separate nominations for each article with some individual argument that the language does not meet the criteria. Right now, the disembodied nominations below mostly have the same people voting the same way on each one, and not leaving much reasoning for their vote at all. The guidelines would also be of independent value. — brighterorange (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specific comments
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 08:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki already has a more complete article. --IanOsgood 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous VfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Esoteric_programming_language_related/Detail#ALPACA_programming_language. --ais523 12:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Ruud 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 08:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki already has a more complete article. --IanOsgood 19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete.
- Previous VfD: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Esoteric_programming_language_related/Detail#Argh!
- Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argh! --ais523 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. —Ruud 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete as probably not encyclopaedic except for the most nerdish. Ohconfucius 08:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki already has a similar article. --IanOsgood 19:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 08:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very stubby. The Esolangs wiki now has a similar article. --IanOsgood 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. I can userfy this or merge if Lar wants to still. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google returns 175 hits the first 6 of which are Wikipedia and its mirrors. JoshuaZ 22:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but failing that, Userify to my user space please, if not kept, as I am working on an article for Mr. Biffle, who I think IS notable enough to survive an AfD, and will merge this in. (not sure why people are voting before this is launched but hey... why not... cool kids do what other cool kids do!) ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - By no means does this satsify WP:WEB or any other notability guideline or policy. -- Wizardry Dragon 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sounds interesting. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 08:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is just as good. --IanOsgood 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:NFT. Also unencyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 08:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is more complete. --IanOsgood 20:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- Delete. —Ruud 20:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:NFT. Also unencyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 08:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is more complete. --IanOsgood 20:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete
- Delete Invented in school one day [50]. —Ruud 01:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete JoshuaZ 15:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 08:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is just as good. --IanOsgood 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:NFT. Unencyclopaedic: Small variant not deserving of own article. Ohconfucius 08:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki has an equivalent article. --IanOsgood 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:NFT. Unencyclopaedic: Small variant not deserving of own article. Ohconfucius 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete! never implemented, already has a mention on the Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete from the talk page: It sounds like from the specs provided here, that this language has never been implemented. Does it really warrant an article? -- General Wesc 04:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete.
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 08:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs article is just as stubby. --IanOsgood 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as bollocks. Ohconfucius 08:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that would be the BULL language... this one is udder nonsense.
- Delete another silly Brainfuck variant. The Esolangs article is exactly the same as this one. --IanOsgood 21:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I think I heard of this elsewhere, but otherwise this is esolang material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is just as good --IanOsgood 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. (note that most Google hits refer to another language called FISh). —Ruud 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "This language is mostly a joke, invented as a parody on a concept of programming language paradigm" Delete per WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 08:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this one is one of the few not already on the Esolangs wiki. I notice all the external links are dead. Looks entirely like a parody of modern development systems; perhaps it should be moved to Uncyclopedia? --IanOsgood 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without a doubt the coolest language I've ever seen (really, go take a look), but hopelessly non-notable. —Ruud 02:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww but its so cute! Seriously, though Delete JoshuaZ 22:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- an experimental "toy" language, delete per WP:NFT Ohconfucius 08:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is already an article on Esolangs wiki. (I'm rather fond of this language myself.) --IanOsgood 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cheesy language per WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 08:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC) groan...[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is just as stubby. --IanOsgood 21:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopaedic: Destined to remain a stub forever. I can't believe the large number of edits which resulted in this entry which remains essentially a stub. Ohconfucius 08:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the stubby Esolangs article is equivalent. --IanOsgood 21:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Unencyclopaedic. Ohconfucius 08:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the Esolangs articles are split, and more complete. --IanOsgood 21:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 08:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is equivalent. (Like Malbolge, this joke language is designed to be hard to use.) --IanOsgood 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Esoteric and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 08:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am the creator of the language, and the author of the wikipedia article. And I agree that it doesn't belong here. There was no esolang wiki when I wrote it, and at the time this seemed like a good place to add it (as the wikipedia was probably the best resource on esoteric languages then). --Runeberge 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is more complete. --IanOsgood 21:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unimplemented. —Ruud 08:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then throw it off the server. JoshuaZ 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unimplemented (but keep the second section, which is a research language; recategorize) --IanOsgood 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as not surviving the 100 year test ;-) Ohconfucius 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-encyclopaedic - variant not deserving of its own entry. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Ohconfucius 08:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolang wiki entry is already more complete than this one. --IanOsgood 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. I don't know why, but this was a tough call. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sounds interesting. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per WP:SOFTWARE Ohconfucius 08:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: although this is more detailed than the Esolangs wiki article, it is just a wikification of the language home page and sample. --IanOsgood 22:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - not quite that simple some parts have been rewritten, some parts have not. In doing this, the authors have actually made things more difficult for everyone, as technically copyvio issues always err on the side of caution, ie, delete. For those interested in doing a comparison, it's not the home page you want but the specification. G00d8y3, l33t 14ngU4g3... LinaMishima 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- if it's not worth merging with Assembly language, it should be deleted per WP:SOFTWARE. Ohconfucius 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article on Esolangs wiki is as stubby (not worth merging, IMO) --IanOsgood 22:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 No Consensus. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep theoretically interesting in the functional programming community --IanOsgood 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: can you cite the theoretical works in functional programming which rely on the Lazy K language, with all its eclectic syntax borrowed from Unlambda, lambda calculus, Iota and Jot, peculiar rules for translation of an ASCII character stream to a list of Church numerals and back, etc.? I would rather think combinatory logic is theoretically interesting, not its implementation in Lazy K. -- EJ 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking back at this, I think I was thinking of Unlambda. Perhaps Lazy K, Iota, and Jot could be merged into a footnote on the Unlambda page. --IanOsgood 02:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: can you cite the theoretical works in functional programming which rely on the Lazy K language, with all its eclectic syntax borrowed from Unlambda, lambda calculus, Iota and Jot, peculiar rules for translation of an ASCII character stream to a list of Church numerals and back, etc.? I would rather think combinatory logic is theoretically interesting, not its implementation in Lazy K. -- EJ 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. -- EJ 01:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. I can't find any theoretical works which use this and I'd be very surprised if there were any. JoshuaZ 01:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete pr User:IanOsgood. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --ArmadilloFromHell 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as bollocks. Ohconfucius 08:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is equivalent. --IanOsgood 22:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. See the webcounter :). —Ruud 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. as WP:NFT. and per WP:SOFTWARE Ohconfucius 08:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is more complete. --IanOsgood 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not-notable and SPAM (website links to Wikipedia). —Ruud 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NERD Ohconfucius 08:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article is a wikification of the home page for the language, and this already has a mention on the Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. Ohconfucius 08:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As sad as it might sound, Ook! actually passes WP:BOLLOCKS - it's a real programming language (which was talked about briefly in a computer science course I took). WilyD 13:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete == Brainfuck, already on Esolang wiki. (Egads! Where was this course taught, so that I can avoid it like the plague?) --IanOsgood 19:31, 31 August 2006 (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.
- 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 speedy close, was deleted in May.--Andeh 02:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as a note at Discworld. JoshuaZ 22:48, 30 March 2006 (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.
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already on Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 22:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki has an equivalent page. --IanOsgood 22:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete someone's homework project, more than likely. --IanOsgood 22:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete More importantly, there are no references, which means we can't merge. It's also interesting to note that it's a calculation aid rather than a langauge - there's no control flow features listed at all…LinaMishima 22:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Keep. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, this clearly looks like an unusual language, making it fairly notable. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Runeberge 16:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't really think I'm active enough in the Wikipedia comunity to be voting on VFD/AFD/DR/whatever you're calling this page now, but, I found this language extremly unusal and intreasting. Bawolff 05:27, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete dead external link, stub, joke, not on Esolangs... it's dead, Jim. --IanOsgood 00:43, 1 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. I won't object to recreation if sources are provided and such. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Ruud 18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This appears to be an unintentionally bad programming language, similar to BANCStar. Without any references, it is hard to verify. --IanOsgood 00:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --ArmadilloFromHell 00:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is more complete --IanOsgood 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Esolangs wiki article is more complete. --IanOsgood 01:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An interesting idea but really non-notable. JoshuaZ 01:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 No Consensus. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Keep Has many independent mentions on the web. JoshuaZ 00:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How could I possibly vote for deletion on the very first article I ever created on wikipedia... a language in which 60% of all extant programs were written by me?!? Well... like this: DELETE. Now there is a better article on the Esolangs wiki. c2:KillYourDarlings. --IanOsgood 01:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Keep. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment had been forgotten in this listing....
- What, ho, Shakespeare too? Keep, this is clearly an interesting language. JIP | Talk 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fascinating, I must say, although our article lacks a little in explaining how all that text can output "hello world". --kingboyk 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this was the subject of a bit of a nerd media blitz awhile back. It's such an interesting concept, too. --Cyde Weys 00:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. already on the Esolangs wiki. BTW, the author [user:JeffreyJohnston] also wrote Numberix, Bubble, Hanoi Love, BitChanger, Barely, and MinISCule. --IanOsgood 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete == Brainfuck with Huffman encoding. Already on Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. == Brainfuck + Whirl, already on Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has a slightly larger following, 600 or so google hits. JoshuaZ 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Googling on "TMMLPTEALPAITAFNFAL" returns 137 unique hits? —Ruud 22:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my total was non-unique. Never mind. (Wow, I'm not getting a good batting average on these programming languages). JoshuaZ 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Googling on "TMMLPTEALPAITAFNFAL" returns 137 unique hits? —Ruud 22:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. article copied from the Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google shows 55 hits, the first 5 of which are Wikipedia and its mirrors. JoshuaZ 22:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. already at the Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 01:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Jared Hunt August 31, 2006, 07:53 (UTC)
- Delete I notified the page originator to consider moving the page to the Esolangs wiki instead. --IanOsgood 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Keep. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I vaguely remember there being a few comp sci papers about this language, which might make it notable. I don't know where one would go about checking that though. JoshuaZ 22:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't find anything at HOPL, are you sure those paper weren't about Semi-Thue systems? —Ruud 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, I'm not sure. JoshuaZ 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Yes, they were. JoshuaZ 22:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't find anything at HOPL, are you sure those paper weren't about Semi-Thue systems? —Ruud 22:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I find this theoretically interesting because of its relation to the aforementioned theory. Article is more than a stub, too. --IanOsgood 21:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per User:JoshuaZ and User:IanOsgood. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is one of the few notable ones that should be kept IMHO. --Runeberge 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Like Unlambda, this one is pretty basic in its class, with solid theory behind it; I'm not sure why it isn't bolded above. --ais523 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The link from Turing tarpit to Thue is actually useful and is a good example of one kind of a Turing tarpit. Joshua
- 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.
- 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 Delete.
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No thank you, non-notable. Jdcooper 01:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT and WP:Complete bollocks. Ohconfucius 09:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already at the Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Ruud 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Interesting paradigm though, worth mentioning in esoteric languages article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT and WP:Complete bollocks. Ohconfucius 09:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Ruud 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT and WP:Complete bollocks. Ohconfucius 09:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BOLLOCKS doesn't seem to apply here. --ais523 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Ruud 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 09:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What does this have to do with WP:NFT? — brighterorange (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Ruud 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonotable variant of Brainfuck. JoshuaZ 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete that which cannot be merged. Small variant not deserving of separate article. Ohconfucius 09:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Brainfuck++ (but keep Brainfuck, of course). --kingboyk 14:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Ruud 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- cute by still delete per WP:NFT. Ohconfucius 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Ruud 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX. Ohconfucius 09:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a hoax, but not worth saving. --ais523 11:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete —Ruud 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find any other mentions. JoshuaZ 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 06:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there is anything which can be substanbtiated, merge into FALSE. Ohconfucius 09:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is way more complete than the Esolangs article, but it's not a good sign that the only external link is via the wayback machine. --IanOsgood 20:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Keep. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding this one: "Probably not a real language, but invented as a joke... Unlike INTERCAL, it is not overtly humorous, and contains nothing terribly silly." No edits since Nov 2005. Only references are Usenet post. Delete. --kingboyk 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep famous joke and cultural touchstone in the programming world. Over 1300 google hits, omitting trivials. Uucp 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1300 is paltry for a so-called cultural touchstone in programming. By the way, I get 418 English pages on Google[51]. Fails the Google Test AFAIC. --kingboyk 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember, this joke originated long enough ago that it effectively antedates the web. However, unlike most of the other esteric language on this page, this one is discussed in print. See for example http://www.amazon.com/Radio-UserLand-Kick-Start/dp/0672325632/ this book, which contains a Kvikkalkul joke. Uucp 21:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And, if this had been listed in the table above, it would have had a Yes in the J/F/R column, as it has an article at FOLDOC. Uucp 21:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Esolangs wiki already has an article with the same external links (and even an implementation!) but unlike many of the other joke languages to delete, this goes back as far as 1993 for a little historical weight. --IanOsgood 20:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the better-referenced languages, with history behind it. --ais523 11:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Keep. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete joke language (minimal "Hello, world"/quine/99 bottles programs). --IanOsgood 22:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this language is notable because it's so obviously a joke. JIP | Talk 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Probably the best-known of the joke languages. --ais523 11:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the section on this SMITH-derived language from Muriel. --IanOsgood 22:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but try to get a rewrite on Esolangs wiki. Also, it already was voted to be deleted! --IanOsgood 22:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, per CSD criteria 1.--TBCTaLk?!? 11:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete already a better article at Esloangs wiki. --IanOsgood 22:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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 Delete. Yanksox 18:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another funge, exact same stubby article on Esolangs wiki. --IanOsgood 22:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JIP | Talk 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep procedurally. LotLE×talk 02:37, 5 September 2006 (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.
- 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.