Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakespeare programming language

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kusma (討論) 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this an AFD I see before me, a language toward the head? Come, let me delete vote. I vote thee out, and yet I see thee still. Art thou not, whimsical lingo, sensible to deletion as creation? Or art thou an article of the mind? A false creation persisting to the close of discussion? - Richfife 04:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, but I have to disagree here! Lo, a language that allows writing computer programs as play scripts! What possibilites for the imagination! Come, surely you must keep this article. JIP | Talk 08:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (Sorry, I don't do Shakespearean language.) Delete Weak keep. It is one of the more elaborate esoteric prgramming languages, and a very funny parody of the quasi-english languages of the COBOL legacy. However, I still do not see the language as notable enough to justify its own page on wikipedia. The one-line description on the List of esoteric programming languages should be kept, and the contents of the article should probably be copied to the Esolang wiki. The Slashdot article establishes (weak) notability. — Tobias Bergemann 11:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC) 09:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tobias Bergemann. flowersofnight (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Prithee, mercy I thee beg! -- Gwern (contribs) 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Prithee nay! Good sir Phillip Sidney! Oh wait, that's Monty Python. - Richfife 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To be or not to be? Not to be! —Ruud 21:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Shall I compare thee to a Slashdot post? I mean, there was a Slashdot article and as such this is probably somewhat known. However, as above comments say, it's still pretty much esolangwiki material. This language definitely needs a brief mention elsewhere due to its profoundly unique nature. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A quick search on Google shows 664 hits, of which the first 10 are from the designers of this computer language. Maybe more details on the language and it's use as a teaching aid should be included on the page. Even though odd, it should remain at least to show others what is out there. Mjcompgeek 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• On What Grounds? Any Wikipedia page is deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy and I would like to know what "problem" that this page has that requires it's deletion. The policy regarding this can be seen here. 153.25.87.34 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original AfD (this is a relisting following a Deletion Review) was based on notability and verifiability. This AfD doesn't have a nomination, it's a relist; saying 'Keep, no arguments given to delete' is fine, but this would mean that you considered the above variants of 'delete' invalid. --ais523 16:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 153.25.87.34 makes a good point; it's unclear what policy this breaches. WP:N is an essay, and the Slashdotting seems to help with that; WP:V is policy, but the interpreters that are available and a listing on http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net (which does its own checking) mean that there are probably enough sources available to write a verifiable article.
  • Comment. As with the vast majority of AfDs, the point is that an article for a non-notable topic should have never been created as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, I have changed my opinion above from "delete" to "weak keep" as the coverage on Slashdot establishes enough notability in my eyes. —Tobias Bergemann 07:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.