| Revision as of 06:38, 19 September 2006 editKappa (talk | contribs)36,858 edits →[]: k← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:02, 19 September 2006 edit undoIsotope23 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,870 edits →[]: CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| *'''Delete''' I've got a copy of the details for later merging. More importantly, the details on this langauge are hard to find, and the article itself is seemingly a raw stub. Unlikely to be verifiable. ] 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' I've got a copy of the details for later merging. More importantly, the details on this langauge are hard to find, and the article itself is seemingly a raw stub. Unlikely to be verifiable. ] 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment''', out of curiousity... where do you propose to merge this to and why merge something that is unlikely to be verifiable when it should just be removed from the target article as unverified?--] 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep'''' until LinaMishima merges it, then redirect. ] 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''' until LinaMishima merges it, then redirect. ] 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:02, 19 September 2006
BAK 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 14:50, 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 19:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
|
Dates shown are the date on which the debate started.
Previous Esoteric programming language-related deletion debates:
|
- Delete I've got a copy of the details for later merging. More importantly, the details on this langauge are hard to find, and the article itself is seemingly a raw stub. Unlikely to be verifiable. LinaMishima 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, out of curiousity... where do you propose to merge this to and why merge something that is unlikely to be verifiable when it should just be removed from the target article as unverified?--Isotope23 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep' until LinaMishima merges it, then redirect. Kappa 06:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)