Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitespace (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:22, 9 February 2022

Latest revision as of 07:08, 11 February 2023

Line 14:

*'''Keep''' - interesting and noteable exactly because it is esoteric. Nobody codes in it, I think, but it is a kind of "look what's possible" item that should remain precisely due to the curiosity value. --[[Special:Contributions/213.191.86.14|213.191.86.14]] ([[User talk:213.191.86.14|talk]]) 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

** I'm sorry, but [[WP:INTERESTING]] is not a valid reason for keep. Wikipedia policy ([[WP:N]]) need to see non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. [[User:Snthdiueoa|Snthdiueoa]] ([[User talk:Snthdiueoa|talk]]) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

*Note: I too am having a hard time finding a good source of information. Interestingly, this article has equivalent articles on [[:de:Whitespace (Programmiersprache)|German Wikipedia]], [[:fr:Whitespace|French Wikipedia]] (which is weird, because we don't create a lot of articles "just 'cause" in French) and a few more languages. But again, these Wikis don't have any sources either. Makes me wonder how notable this programming language is. • [[User:Supasaru|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#1100ff;">Supā</fontspan><fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff0011;">saru</fontspan>]] 21:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

*For prior discussion, see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related/Detail]]. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

:* Hmmm, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion: there was nothing about it on the article's talk page. However, none of the arguments in it address the issue at stake: there is no coverage in [[WP:RS|reliable]] secondary sources. [[User:Snthdiueoa|Snthdiueoa]] ([[User talk:Snthdiueoa|talk]]) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)