Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny programming languages

Tiny programming languages

This article has been a stub for almost a year and nobody has done anything with it. As currently written, it's pretty much of a disaster. Perhaps it should just be redirected to Domain-specific programming language? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there will be someday when a user expands stubs. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is "tiny programming language" an established compsci term? ~~If it's not, I vote delete as WP:OR/defining a new term.~~ --Muchness 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an established term. Delete as neologism. Fan1967 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. --Muchness 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Domain-specific programming language. The article is unverifiable original research made up in school after the first class of Compiler Construction 101. I doubt the described language exists or has a chance of existing other than as a joke. Little languages do exist and there is an article about those. Weregerbil 15:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Weregerbil. -- Alpha269 15:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Domain-specific programming language per above. --Muchness 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a neologism, then it seems to me delete would make more sense than a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess "small/tiny/little (programming) language" are all the same, none of the terms is any more "official" than the others. IMHO delete as unlikely typo is just as fine, especially given that the title is plural. Or create all redirects: small/tiny/little/wee = 4, with "programming" or not = 2, plural or singular = 2, total = 16 variants :-) Weregerbil 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]