Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doublefuck programming language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:19, 22 December 2004

Revision as of 22:25, 22 December 2004

Line 10:

* '''Strong Keep''' and a strong censure to the people who keep putting esoteric programming languages up for vfd. What next, delete Fermat's Last Theorem because the poor guy didn't have enough space in his margin? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway#Page_Footer|Talk]]]] 16:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

**But hey? Making an arbitrary programming language is much easier than coming up with a non-obvious right statement. Wow, I invented the new language: TRIPLEFUCK! It has three memory areas! I r t3h l337z0r3st! [[User:Grue|Grue]] 18:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

** You don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway#Page_Footer|Talk]]]] 22:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' brainfuck is big enough as it is. Add a link to it from brainfuck, and leave it where it is. [[User:Mbecker|<nowiki></nowiki>]] &mdash; [[User:Mbecker|<font color="007700">&#12510;&#12452;&#12465;&#12523;</font>]] [[User talk:Mbecker|<font color="ff9900">&#8362;</font>]] 18:18, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

* Comment: Unsure. I mean, if it were my decision I'd either delete (noting that despite earlier debates there are still no sources or references cited for [[doublefuck]]) or more likely merge and redirect (merging the fact that different opcodes are used and deleting as unencyclopedic exactly what these are). The only attraction I can see for this article is that it gives another opportunity to use naughty words. I think it's good to document and keep this discussion if the article is kept, and harmless to delete the article but unlikely to happen. So no censures, and no vote from me. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] 20:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)