Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FALSE

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE

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

Programming language developed in 1992, didn't find any independent reliable sources to verify information or indicate notability of subject. Has had "notability" tag since 2012, no references cited. Agyle (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are, well, there are none. No objection to merging some this material at Esoteric programming language#FALSE but I don't believe there are sources to justify a separate article or even a wholesale merge. See also related AfD regarding the author at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wouter van Oortmerssen‎. Msnicki (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not seeing anything in the peer-reviewed literature, google books, or any independent, reliable sources via google. I don't think there's enough here to warrant a merge, but I wouldn't object. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability. And naming it by a common word doesn't help in trying to find any... —David Eppstein (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , not notable in a general encyclopediac way, only influences cited in article are on equally obscure ...novelty... programming lnaguages. Computer science in-jokes are not good content for a general purpose encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2014 (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.