Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LOLCODE (2nd nomination)

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. consensus on WP:N and some on WP:GNG JForget 13:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOLCODE

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

DELETE This is a wholly non-notable programming language, as evidenced by the heavy reliance upon primary sources and mounds of original research. JBsupreme (talk)

KEEP As a programmer, and lover of Lolcats, I'm partial to a bastard child of the two. More importantly, however, it is notable, if nothing else than because it's included in the .Net framework. There's something to be said about cleaning things up, however--this is very much a copy of the lolcode website. SithToby (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT much? Please base your argument on policy not your love for lolcats. Everyone loves lolcats. JBsupreme (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my argument, that's my WP:CoI disclosure. My argument and observation follow that sentence. SithToby (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I do actually believe it's notable. I point to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LOLCODE where Gandalf61 said Featured at Microsft's TechED 2007 conference; implemented in Microsoft DLR; mentioned in Computer Department News at Lancaster University (home of creator) and on CNN (I have added sources to the article); and literally tens of thousands of Google hits. Obviously meets notability criteria. -- I am in full agreement. AlanI ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article's sources show it easily meets the WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sited sourced look like they meet the notability guidelines. The most promising one is Chron.com, but that's a regional publication and it only mentions LOLCODE briefly at the end of an article on LolCat. I'd say merge with LolCat but that article already covers the subject sufficiently.--RDBury (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to lolcat. Significant in the context of the phenomenon, but apparently not on its own. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced and notable. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 99% of the sources cited are primary sources, and the other 1% barely mention the subject in passing. In what way is this subject "sourced and notable" as you claim? JBsupreme (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your understanding of the term "primary source" appears to be different from mine, and, more importantly, different from Wikipedia's definition. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I'll play along. Which of these sources meet the definition of "non-trivial coverage from a reliable third party publication" ? JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You could read primary source to straighten out your misunderstanding. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this clearly meets WP:N. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I needed this information about a topic of some intellectual interest and endeavour by its creator who is a well known CS academic and found what I needed to know here on Wikipedia - that is or should be the prime purpose of the encyclopedia - to be honest I'm surprised and a little concerned it should be at risk of deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.78.145.155 (talk) 04:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. Reference [1] is a third-party publication, which covers it in some detail. --Robin (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced and notable. Ghettoblaster (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not hugely notable but there is enough in sources to meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2009 (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.