Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakespeare programming language
This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Is this an AFD I see before me, a language toward the head? Come, let me delete vote. I vote thee out, and yet I see thee still. Art thou not, whimsical lingo, sensible to deletion as creation? Or art thou an article of the mind? A false creation persisting to the close of discussion? - Richfife 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, but I have to disagree here! Lo, a language that allows writing computer programs as play scripts! What possibilites for the imagination! Come, surely you must keep this article. JIP | Talk 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- (Sorry, I don't do Shakespearean language.) Delete. It is one of the more elaborate esoteric prgramming languages, and a very funny parody of the quasi-english languages of the COBOL legacy. However, I still do not see the language as notable enough to justify its own page on wikipedia. The one-line description on the List of esoteric programming languages should be kept, and the contents of the article should probably be copied to the Esolang wiki. — Tobias Bergemann 11:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Tobias Bergemann. flowersofnight (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Prithee, mercy I thee beg! -- Gwern (contribs) 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Prithee nay! Good sir Phillip Sidney! Oh wait, that's Monty Python. - Richfife 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- To be or not to be? Not to be! —Ruud 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Shall I compare thee to a Slashdot post? I mean, there was a Slashdot article and as such this is probably somewhat known. However, as above comments say, it's still pretty much esolangwiki material. This language definitely needs a brief mention elsewhere due to its profoundly unique nature. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)