Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages

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.

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. Mackensen (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]
• 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.

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]
• 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]
• 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.