| Revision as of 02:44, 19 September 2006 editLinaMishima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,419 edits →[]: returning briefly to comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:38, 19 September 2006 edit undoKappa (talk | contribs)36,858 edits →[]: skNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| *'''Delete''' Already merged, whilst certainly interesting, it's clearly a logical derivative of ] only really adding data handling. Unlikely to be considered a prime base of future works, and hard to verify. ] 02:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' Already merged, whilst certainly interesting, it's clearly a logical derivative of ] only really adding data handling. Unlikely to be considered a prime base of future works, and hard to verify. ] 02:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *Speedy keep, already merged. ] 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:38, 19 September 2006
Argh!
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 14:45, 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.
- Delete, no demonstrated notability.--Isotope23 20:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
|
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.
Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:
|
- Delete Already merged, whilst certainly interesting, it's clearly a logical derivative of befunge only really adding data handling. Unlikely to be considered a prime base of future works, and hard to verify. LinaMishima 02:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, already merged. Kappa 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)