| Revision as of 02:31, 19 September 2006 editLinaMishima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,419 edits →[]: returning briefly to comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:11, 5 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''Delete'''. —]→] • 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|}} | |||
| This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages overturned by DRV . 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'''. ] 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages overturned by DRV . 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'''. ] 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 23: | Line 30: | ||
| * '''Delete - already merged''' whilst the concept of overloading by direction is interesting, it's technically nothing new, and not something that new works would be based upon. Lack of verification is an issue. ] 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | * '''Delete - already merged''' whilst the concept of overloading by direction is interesting, it's technically nothing new, and not something that new works would be based upon. Lack of verification is an issue. ] 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *Speedy keep, already merged. ] 06:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Redirect''' Already merged. --] 11:44, 19 September 2006 (]]]) | |||
| **'''Comment''' - What the fuck has it been merged to, can someone actually explain their votes? And if it is already merged, why then, is Kappa voting Speedy Keep? Has something been merged here? What is Ais523 suggesting we redirect to? - ]]] 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***If you read the penultimate debate in my modified {{]}} above, you'll see that ] is planning to merge all the minor esolangs to ], in which case the history is needed for copyright reasons, which is why I'm advocating a redirect. --] 17:17, 19 September 2006 (]]]) | |||
| ****Yeah, I figured that out. But as I've now commented on other AFDs for esolangs, if these are not used, not notable, and just something invented at school in one day, then they shouldn't even be on the list, as they are nothing beyond a nerdjoke. Speedy Keep is still a ridiculous vote, given the reasoning which suggests a delete or redirect. - ]]] 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - Anything of worth is covered in Brainfuck. No assertion of anything. Speedy Keep is the stupidest vote I've seen. - ]]] 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Per my comments at ]. —'']'' 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Not notable, not encyclopedia material. The external link doesn't work. '''] 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)''' | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 02:11, 5 February 2023
- 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. —Centrx→talk • 00:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
2L 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 14:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete derivative nn cruft. Once you have seen P′′ (which is cool), you have seen all of these "languages". Leibniz 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no demonstrated notability.--Isotope23 20:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There have been many previous esoteric programming language-related AfDs, often with mass nominations. Not all of the following will be relevant, but many may be.
|
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.
Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:
|
- Delete - already merged whilst the concept of overloading by direction is interesting, it's technically nothing new, and not something that new works would be based upon. Lack of verification is an issue. LinaMishima 02:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, already merged. Kappa 06:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect Already merged. --ais523 11:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - What the fuck has it been merged to, can someone actually explain their votes? And if it is already merged, why then, is Kappa voting Speedy Keep? Has something been merged here? What is Ais523 suggesting we redirect to? - Hahnchen 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you read the penultimate debate in my modified {{multidel}} above, you'll see that User:LinaMishima is planning to merge all the minor esolangs to List of esoteric programming languages, in which case the history is needed for copyright reasons, which is why I'm advocating a redirect. --ais523 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured that out. But as I've now commented on other AFDs for esolangs, if these are not used, not notable, and just something invented at school in one day, then they shouldn't even be on the list, as they are nothing beyond a nerdjoke. Speedy Keep is still a ridiculous vote, given the reasoning which suggests a delete or redirect. - Hahnchen 17:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you read the penultimate debate in my modified {{multidel}} above, you'll see that User:LinaMishima is planning to merge all the minor esolangs to List of esoteric programming languages, in which case the history is needed for copyright reasons, which is why I'm advocating a redirect. --ais523 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - What the fuck has it been merged to, can someone actually explain their votes? And if it is already merged, why then, is Kappa voting Speedy Keep? Has something been merged here? What is Ais523 suggesting we redirect to? - Hahnchen 17:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Anything of worth is covered in Brainfuck. No assertion of anything. Speedy Keep is the stupidest vote I've seen. - Hahnchen 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Per my comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedia material. The external link doesn't work. RickReinckens 05:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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.