Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HQ9+ (2nd nomination)

HQ9+ (2nd nomination)

I know this article has come up for debate twice before and voted to keep, but since then it seems a more stringent consensus has been reached and a lot more esoteric programming languages have been deleted as non-notable, including the entire List of esoteric programming languages. Perhaps the best argument in favor of this article's non-notability though is this article is almost completely orphaned except for a link at the bottom of Quine (computing); unlike Brainfuck or Befunge, it's seemingly not notable enough to be mentioned in the main Esoteric programming language article. Krimpet 01:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Interesting, maybe could be expanded and un-orphaned Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs} 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. Essentially this is an article about a joke created about Cliff Biffle (since there is no use for this programming language). Unless there is assertion of the significance of this joke, I say delete. Mitaphane _?|! 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HQ9+BJAODN, then del *.* ~ trialsanderrors 07:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are a lot of people talking about it. It seems to be quite a popular joke among a certain class of programmer, hence the popularity of implementing it (and there are a lot of implementations out there). JulesH 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
slighty week keep it has been nominated before and a concensous of keep was reached and i know of a large number of programmers implementing this.--Lucy-marie 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - significance and notability not apparent or, apparently, stated. ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't agree with any of the reasons given to delete it and it sounds like those who want it gone are trying to get another bite at the apple. Shouldn't there be some sort of double-jeopardy protections for articles in wikipedia? --Lee Vonce 21:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]