Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related


 * 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 no result, subseded by a later AfD; this AfD has been abandoned for too long to be able to close with a result. --ais523 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Esoteric programming language related

 * To conserve space on the main VfD page, the individual votes for each of the 74 articles have been move to this subpage.

There seems to be a whole bunch of so called Esoteric programming language that found its way into wikipedia over time. Personally I think most of them are rubbish and nothing more than a (lame) joke, except maybe Befunge, Brainfuck, False, Intercal, Malbolge, Unlambda, and Shakespeare programming language (see Template:Esolangs). I apologize to the community for listing them all on VfD at the same time, especially since the VfD already has a very heavy load, but I see no other way to clean out this mess. By putting them all in one sub page Votes for deletion/Esoteric programming language related I hope to speed up the deletion process. Also, if some of you think some articles could be "Speedy Deleted", be my guest. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 12:01, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Delete 'em ALL!!! Good grief.  I did enjoy TMMLPTEALPAITAFNFAL, though.  New variables and commands for every day of the century.  Employers must be screaming for this skill.  Terrapin 14:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge (sans examples) all but Var'aq, False programming language. {Ανάριον} 15:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. By the way, the google search results are skewed. An extreme example:
 * 0 google hits for -wikipedia -thefreedictionary "HQ9 Plus" "esoteric programming language"
 * 2 google hits for -wikipedia -thefreedictionary "HQ9+" "esoteric programming language"
 * 251 google hits for -wikipedia -thefreedictionary "HQ9+"
 * 7 google hits for -wikipedia -thefreedictionary "C Plus Plus" "esoteric programming language"
 * Κσυπ Cyp  15:15, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed your addition of "C Plus Plus" from the list... this is confusing enough without joke listings. ;-) • Benc • 18:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep all You know something is MASSIVELY wrong with either the nominator or with vfd if 74 articles are proposed for deletion all at once. Like ARGH!
 * Motivation: Computer languages are self selecting. If they don't work, they don't work and don't show up anywhere. Some esoteric computer langauges are more famous than others, but it doesn't hurt to have all of them on wikipedia. I'm somewhat strongly POV against vfd by now, and this kind of nomination doesn't do much to lower my blood pressure. I wish there was a speedy denomination procedure. (for obvioussly broken nominations such as this) :-( I'm going to stop doing vfd for a while now. Don't delete the entire wikipedia while I'm not watching? :-/ Kim Bruning 15:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * FYI: I looked at all entries at least twice, and also voted to KEEP some of them, but most are rubbish. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:57, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you don't think some of these articles should be deleted, why did you list them on VfD in the first place? That seems like an abuse of the VfD process to me, making speculative guesses about articles which someone else might think is worthy of deletion and then cluttering VfD up with polls to see if anyone does. If someone else thinks they're delete-worthy they can list them here themselves, and if you wanted to do random polling to prompt them you should probably have stuck to talk: pages. Bryan 23:50, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep all but redirect where necessary to prevent them being recreated. Merge into the list of esoteric programming languages and delink them from there. Exceptions that should be kept as articles and not redirected include (but are not limited to) Brainfuck, C Plus Plus, Iota and Jot (completely misleading Google search. iota+jot "programming language" gets 292 and iota +"programming language" gets 1940 hits), L33t, Lambda, PATH, OISC, VALGOL and Var'aq (Var'aq +"programming language" gets >17000 hits). I didn't check them all. I expect there are many more exceptions that these. Angela. 16:08, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would suggest that in most cases, we just want a redirect to List of esoteric programming languages; if the language has any actual significance, perhaps that page could include a link to the language's homepage. I don't see much point in including fictional languages at all, unless they have some cultural significance. BTW, having so many in the list is making it extremely difficult to submit a vote, due to edit conflicts. Please don't do that again. Securiger 16:17, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep - I strongly object to deletion enthusiasts listing anything that they can't find on a Google search and then claiming it shouldn't be here. If it is real, verifiable, neutral, keep it. You have no idea whether this is useful to others. Mark Richards 16:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect all except ones listed by Chris73 to list of esoteric programming languages. I'm in partial agreement with Kim.  VfD has some great uses and is definitely necessary,  but this is a little overboard.  70+ VfD's all at once?  Did this not indicate to you that perhaps talking in the Village Pump or starting a poll might have been better? -Vina 16:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I *strongly* disagree with Schnee, who seems to feel that nothing should ever be deleted ever from Wikipedia, no matter how obscure. Delete all but the following because of obscurity:
 * Befunge
 * Brainfuck
 * C-
 * INTERCAL
 * Iota/Jot
 * Malborge
 * --Improv 17:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * [Comment] The fact is that most of these languages are in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Why?  Because they are essentially Original Research, with no greater significance outside of the handful of l33t-wannabes who want to claim they invented a language.  Terrapin 18:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * To clarify: "original research" refers to work done for the specific purpose of including it in the Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, none of these articles qualify under that definition: they're all reporting the facts about pre-existing toy languages. If anything, these articles are candidates for deletion or merging because of their lack of notability. • Benc • 19:41, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep - These articles are of interest to me and to many others. There's no compelling reason to get rid of the information. Why is this even being brought up? Factitious 19:32, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I second Angela's vote: keep or redirect all. To decide which ones to keep and which ones to merge/redirect into List of esoteric programming languages, discuss it at WikiProject Programming Languages, not here on VfD. Side note about the mass listing: please don't ever do this again. I know you were trying to speed up the process, but the logistics of juggling 70+ subnominations has actually slowed down the process. (Never sacrifice sanity for speed!) If you want to delete an entire class of articles, start by discussing it at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and the village pump. Thanks, • Benc • 19:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all of them, and make a policy to stop people doing this again. Intrigue 19:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. No policies, though, that is absurd. He is not a troll for nominating these. &mdash;  El Chico!  Talk 20:15, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep these articles. The Recycling Troll 20:18, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Yath 20:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important articles. Some are funny languages, but you don't remove articles about comedians. --Pengo 22:13, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep in general: esoteric-ness is not grounds for deletion, so why should it be a valid criterion for merging listings on VfD? OTOH, I'm sure some of these aren't notable enough to have their own pages, or even their own mentions in a list - people's pet projects could be construed as vanity. I suggest making a new listing containing only those which are not notable; or a handful of listings, sorted by perceived notability; or Benc's suggestion of discussing it somewhere else first, and merging into the list. - IMSoP 22:53, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. There very well may be some articles in this grouping that are worthy of deletion, but I'm not going to read through all of them picking and choosing; if the deletion-proposer wants to propose deleteing the whole lot of them one bundle then so be it, I vote to keep the whole lot of them. There are lessons to be learned even from "bad" or "obscure" languages. Bryan 23:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, I just noticed that the VfD template on the articles I just spot-checked all point to non-existant VfD pages. Someone who stumbles across one of these articles will not be able to find where the voting is actually being held without hunting through VfD manually for it, which is a bit of a major undertaking under the circumstances. Bryan 23:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep all. If a particular article is a joke/whatever, it needs to be listed individually; please don't bulk-add all ~70 articles in an entire category. Kwertii 00:35, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Some of these, such as Unlambda, actually illustrate important computer science principles. Others, such as my favourite, HQ9 Plus, parody various aspects of programming language design. And like others, I object to an entire category of topics being proposed for deletion: if there are individual entries that should be deleted, propose those on the merits of the case. The fact that such classics as Brainfuck, Befunge and INTERCAL have been proposed suggests the proposer isn't taking due care and attention. &mdash;Ashley Y 01:02, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
 * Look again. I voted "Keep" for Brainfuck, Befunge and INTERCAL (see Sub Page) -- Chris 73 Talk 01:21, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment on the methods, not the man. I have no doubt that Chris's motives for this mass listing were nothing but the best. • Benc • 04:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. With 20/20 hindsight I should have done things differently. I guess I have to work on my foresight, and try not to make such a goof again. Apologies to all people involved. Still think that some articles on the list are not really needed, though. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:07, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep only the ones enumerated in Template:Esolangs; merge the rest into a single article. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 03:40, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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. 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|Norm] 09:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all. No need to delete knowledge. 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. --Phil | Talk 12:05, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep All esoteric does not mean unknown.  There is a great deal of interest in these languages among CS people.  The Google results are flawed and so meaningless.  Too much attention is paid to them anyway.  Also, the nominator voted Keep for some entries, undercutting his own argument   The Steve  13:07, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep All The esoteric programming languages have relevance in terms of experimental computer science -- for one thing, most are simple Turing Machines. While they might not be generally useful, they do have their uses, and they're interesting to read about.  Considering the number of votes in support of the esoteric languages, I'm suprised the boilerplates are still up....
 * Comment: a lot of people are casting blanket "keep" votes despite the fact that some of these "languages" have, by their articles' own admission, never existed outside of one humorous USENET post. I suggest that, after the five-day voting period for this mass nomination ends, any articles that have received a simple majority of non-"keep" votes cast specifically for them be re-nominated, so that we can reach a genuine consensus on whether they deserve inclusion.   &mdash;Triskaideka 15:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oooh, what a great idea! It's always so fun to pick on minorities! How about we delete all chess variants, Category:Homestar Runner, Template:HitchhikerMiscellanea and, here comes the best part, all but the five biggest religions from Category:Religion! Personally I think most of religions are rubbish and nothing more than a (lame) joke so obviously they should be deleted. --ZeroOne 18:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all (but possibly merge some). The few completely fictional joke languages (namely DOGO, SIMPLE, SLOBOL, VALGOL, LAIDBACK, SARTRE, FIFTH, C- and LITHP) could be merged under some appropriate topic (like fictional programming languages). Other languages could stay like they are, or, if you have some really good reasons to do so, merged into the list of esoteric programming languages or preferably to some other -new- list, like esoteric programming languages. However this list would become really long and Wikipedia would start complaining that it should be split into smaller articles. --ZeroOne 19:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If someone were to write a working compiler for SIMPLE, would you change your mind about its status? Factitious 20:34, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Someone did write a working (at least, I assume it works) implementation of VALGOL; see .  &mdash;Triskaideka 21:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and there's also an attempt to define the specs for SARTRE too... So I don't know. They can't be as wild as the original article in InfoWorld specified so in that matter their implementations are different from the actual joke. Maybe fictional programming languages could also hold those languages that started as a joke? The working ones could also be listed in the list of esoteric programming languages. The simplest solution would of course be to left everything as it currently is. :) --ZeroOne 21:29, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if something started as a joke but now exists, then it isn't really fictional... OK, I'm thinking you're right about the simplest solution. Factitious 21:39, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all. And don't list 74 articles at once. Eric119 20:39, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all because I object to this mass-nomination.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 20:48, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all: Remember, evin tho these ar esoteric program langwige its still reel program langwiges! Do not redirect eny uv them (unles thay ar 1 that only 1 persen in the hole world uses them, wich is unlikely). The 1 that you do redirect you shud put a link to the web-site about them. And remember, a lot uv peple still use INTERCAL. Reed sum uv the abuve as well to see wy its importent to keep all uv them. -- zzo38 02:39, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
 * Keep all. ElBenevolente 03:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all and remove the VfD notice (sooner than later) from at least all the Template:Esolangs articles (that User:Chris 73 obviously shouldn't have put on VfD in the first place).  ~leif &#9786; HELO 09:49, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:34, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chris  ~leif &#9786; HELO 21:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all - The mass nomination is wrong. If you can't be bothered to evaluate them individually then they don't belong here.  If you have then discuss them individually instead of lumping them in a group where the good can be thrown out with the bad (if any). -  Tεx  τ  urε  20:38, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: several voters are giving Chris 73 a hard time for mass-nominating a large number of articles. In fact, he's one of a very few people who did evaluate all of the articles individually.  He voted on every one and provided at least a short reason. This only looks like a blanket nomination because he nominated them all at the same time and allowed people to vote on them all as a group&mdash;which I think is turning out to have been a mistake, as some of these subjects are, IMO, clearly more notable than others.  It might have been easier on the voters if he'd nominated them in batches over a longer period (although then I'm sure people would have cited the languages that hadn't yet been deleted as support for the languages up for consideration), but I think it's unfair to criticize him for being willing to do more work than anyone else.  If articles deserve to be nominated, then they deserve to be nominated, and many of these clearly deserve at least nomination, even if we ultimately decide that they don't deserve deletion.   &mdash;Triskaideka 21:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (Comment & Apoligies by Nominator) Thank you very much. I agree that it was a mistake to nominate such a large nuber at once, including some clear Keeper's .I would like to thank everybody who looked at the individual nominations for their effort. My apologies to the community for creating such a stir. On top of that, I have to go on a trip today and won't be back until Thursday, so I can't even clean up my mess when it is due on Monday. (Not that I would delete anything at this point with that number of Keep all votes). Otherwise i would remove all the VfD tags from the articles and also see which articles had a majority for deletion based on the individual votes. Again - not deleting them but only list them somewhere (possibly WikiProject Programming Languages) and ask for further comment. After that I probably take a VfD Holiday. Thanks. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:13, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Either keep all or keep the prominent esoteric languages while merging several of the lesser-known ones into a smaller number of articles. I provide the second option not based on how esoteric these languages are (that's the point, after all), but because some of them you really can't say much about. I could sum up the Whitespace language or HQ9+ in a paragraph. In any case, kill none of this content! Derrick Coetzee 16:48, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * There's considerably more than a paragraph in the HQ9+ entry, and it could in fact be expanded by mentioning the HQ9++ extension. Factitious 20:52, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all. As an esoteric language enthusiast I would really hate to see them go. Wikipedia has become most comprehensive list of esoteric languages on the web. Rune Berge, 14:08, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all. --Tmh
 * Keep all and reorganize 02:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep all and please redo the google searches for all, many of them get more results if you remove "programming language" from the quotes. 01:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all. They may be obscure, but documentation of something true should not be destroyed just because someone feels it is insignificant. -- Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist 02:07, 28 February 2006 (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.