Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlooP and FlooP


 * 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. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

BlooP and FlooP

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article, I feel, is not really in accord with WP:NN. None of the information on this page is new; it is simply a summary of Hofstadter's summary of primitive recursive functions in his book Godel, Escher, Bach, and as such, there really isn't even anything to merge. Having read the book (it is among my favorite works), I am still of the opinion that this is in no way notable, significant, or unique enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Ocean ♫  Etude  08:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep indirectly notable through Gödel, Escher, Bach. A merge to that article would also be a possibility. —Ruud 22:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Keep The two languages illustrate an important point and a distinction between languages. As they were given early prominence through their publication in EGB, they have an important role as the commonplace representation of this distinction. This is reflected by their citation in the linked references.
 * That said, the article fails to express this significance. Expansion to explain why the distinction is important would be welcomed. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Wifione    .......  Leave a message  19:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)




 * Comment The concepts are extremely important, but are already discussed at primitive recursive function and computable function. The specific notation used by Hofstadter lacks either book and journal sources (outside GEB itself), which suggests it's not particularly notable. On the other hand, this page could make a good introductory-level article to the concepts. To do so, however, it would need some work. -- 202.124.74.200 (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the lack of sources means that such work would inevitably be WP:OR. -- 202.124.72.196 (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do these busy-bodies come from, the self-annointed gurus who decide what is and isn't "notable" for all the rest of us? This is interesting stuff. And can be useful if developed a bit. I noticed someone put some examples in. Nothing wrong with that: an example or examples is not "O.R." The O.R. was achieved by Hofstadter. BillWvbailey (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When people say "notability," they mean the rules in WP:N. Nobody (apart from the original work by Hofstadter) seems to have written in reliable sources about BLooP and FLooP. We could pad the article out with Unlimited Register Machine examples converted to BLooP/FLooP syntax, but that would be WP:OR. I've got a (longish) FLooP implementation of the Ackermann function, for example, but inserting it would probably be against the rules. On the other hand, inserting BLooP/FLooP examples into other articles would probably be inappropriate. -- 202.124.72.187 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep The sheer number of implementations of BLooP/FLooP argues some notability, but reliable sources are badly needed. I also wonder if any colleges teach computability using BLooP/FLooP syntax? -- 202.124.72.187 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A search of ".edu" sites finds several college courses that at least mention BLooP/FLooP, which suggests enough notability to keep the article. -- 202.124.73.250 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On top of that, a few books (e.g. Forster, 2003) do specifically cite Hofstadter's Bloop/FlooP formulation. -- 202.124.73.250 (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.