Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m substituting user signatures using AWB |
Olaf Davis (talk | contribs) m fix broken <sup> tag that was messing up whole page |
||
Line 69:
*'''Keep'''. [[User:Mikkalai|Mikkalai]] 05:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I think keep it if there is one mention on 1 google about the language and its not a wikipedia article copy, keep the language, also keep it if any other langugages or theorys are based off of it. [[User:Patcat88|Patcat88]] 05:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*'''''Keep all'''''. This Vfd listing is just wrong, just like listing the GNAA three times. Google hits are NOT a valid reason to delete. Wikipedia is not paper, I have gone through every listing and each of the languages are real. This will hurt Wikipedia by creating holes in Wikipedias coverage. Esotoric languages are crazy, but it provides entertainment for some, so keep them all. [[User:Norm|Nor<sup>[[user_talk:Norm|m]]]
*'''''Keep all'''''. No need to delete knowledge. [[User:WhiteTimberwolf|WhiteTimberwolf]] 11:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
*'''''Comment''''': the google test mechanism employed to discredit the languages described in the articles seems fatally flawed. Almost invariably the test has been to search for "''name'' programming language". I wonder if this is likely to discount perfectly good hits simply on the grounds that this exact phrase does not occur. I might support replacing the '''''List''''' with a longer article containing more detailed descriptions of each language, but I suspect that the product would be less helpful than what we have now. I'm definitely inclining towards ''Keep'' unless I can be convinced otherwise. --[[User:Phil Boswell|Phil]] | [[User talk:Phil Boswell|Talk]] 12:05, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
| |||