Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L33t programming language

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep (ignoring the sockpuppet votes). Deathphoenix 02:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

L33t programming language
Non-notable programming language, article writen by language's creator. Google find about 63 unique hits, of which almost all are Wikipedia or Wikipedia-mirror hits. Only 3 or 4 relevant non-encyclopedia links. Trying to find examples of the language's only major program ("Hello world") using Google finds under 5 hits.(Delete) &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  12:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is nevertheless a valid exercise in computer science; the point was to create a language with certain 'absurd' properties (e.g. self-modifying code) and challenging computer geeks to write code in it. The fact that the syntax looks like l33tspeak is an inside joke. Keep. Radiant! 12:33, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * The description you give of it makes it suspiciously sound like original research... Phils 12:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Close but not quite. Since the programming language actually exists, a simple description of it and the reasons it was designed is not original research. Radiant! 13:45, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * It certainly exists, it just appears that noone else has ever heard of it. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  14:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existence of a real programming language that is written as l33tspeak is somewhat notable. 193.167.132.66 12:35, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As the author of the article and the language, I (somewhat predictably) vote keep. The article is about the language, not the author, and I didn't write it for money or personal glory - I just thought people would be interested. There's a pretty good selection of obscure esoteric languages with little real-world use already described on Wikipedia, for people who happen to be interested in such things. In my humble opinion l33t's unusual syntax makes it as notable as any other esoteric language. There have been people other than myself writing interpreters and programs for l33t, which to me implies that there is some interest in it. I won't be offended if the page gets deleted, but I felt it was a valid contribution to Wikipedia.
 * Note: Comment by 159.153.176.45 --InShaneee 18:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep-PlasmaDragon 14:52, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I can appreciate the effort it must have took to make this, but the fact is that it's not in wide use, nor will it most likely ever be. That means no notability, and most likely vanity. --InShaneee 16:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful example of esoteric programming language. Fun example.  This is a chicken/egg problem. it isn't notable so Wikipedia shouldn't list it, but then if noone spreads it around, how can it ever become notable?
 * 5 google hits for a programming topic and we're talking about keeping this, while Chicago aldermen face serious chances of deletion? What's this place coming to? Delete until somebody proves widespread notability. Meelar (talk) 17:29, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this definitely counts as non-notable Delete Jackliddle 21:30, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless there is some evidence that this language attains some measure of notoriety. The article is pretty much cut and paste from the authors' web sites anyway (the article's external links). --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 23:20, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google does overstate the importance of technical topics so I'd expect quite a few hits for anything notable. This isn't a notable language. Carrp | Talk 23:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but with reservations, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 23:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research Gazpacho 00:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Del33t. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 02:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Someone's weekend project, like most "esoteric" programming languages. I'm sure it was a lot of fun, but it's very far to the wrong side of the line. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brainfuck and Befunge and other esoteric programming languages are not in 'wide use' (hell, not even Haskell is in wide use), but their presence here is merited. There are not one but two interpreters -- python and ruby -- and I find that to be worthy of mention, and the accomplishment notable. Avriette 13:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Longhair 13:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure it rates an article yet (verging on something like original research), but it's very clever, vastly amusing and really needs a mention on Slashdot! If it's marked for deletion here, it should go to NerdyPC or somewhere, which has offered to keep lots of deleted Wikipedia content - David Gerard 12:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Other esoteric languages are on Wikipedia, what makes L33t so different, just because it's not in wide use? Who uses Brainfuck for their day to day programming needs?  It's just there to prove that it can be done.  Some people probably do, and just because the article is written by the author (well, on top of its lack of use) is no justification for deletion.  Mind you, I think it would be better of more of the article were on a website dedicated to the language, but the article's rather detailed and well written, so why not keep it? Applegoddess 05:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Flamingspinach 19:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep The Recycling Troll 18:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Snal 1:41, 02 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually by anon IP 85.202.139.114. User's only edit. Username doesn't exist. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  03:01, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I cant believe this is up for deletion! This language is obviously not in wide use - the purpose of esoterics is not to be used, but to be explored, experimented with, and laughed at (with). Given that l33t language actually does exist, this article is therefore factual and worthy of wiki. It's true that google doesnt have much else on this language - which is why the Wiki article is even more so a valuable resource! --EatMyShortz 03:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a primary source. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:37, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, its not a place to publish new research. This is not "new research" - it is factual as I stated. I use Wiki as a "primary source" - that's more or less the whole point, it is a place to find information without having to track down individual sites. l33t does have a site, but its more handy here, and better for Wiki. I think the volume of users who want to keep this page should speak for itself, but if deleted, this could also set a dangerous precedent for an awfully large number of other pages on Wikipedia, including about 50 other esoteric languages. --EatMyShortz 12:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, original research.  Neither interesting nor informative.  Esoteric programming languages are not inherently notable; any half-competent computer science student can design one and implement an interpreter or compiler in well under 24 hours.  No evidence whatsoever has been presented that this is on the level of Befunge, Brainfuck, or INTERCAL. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:35, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page, while obviously not about a mainstream language, is an excellent example of an esoteric programming language. I can't believe it's up for deletion. (I know this is my first edit, but I am a long time reader...) Gfxmonk 08:42, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * User's only edit. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  13:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - How do we learn more if pages are deleted? ToriaURU 13:58, 3 Mar, 2005 (UTC)
 * User's seventh edit. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 16:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am getting sick of this "user's opinion doesn't count because they dont post much" attitude. Gfxmonk explained already his only edit, and ToriaURU has seven already! Provide some arguments for your case instead of trying to discredit people who have equally valid opinions. --EatMyShortz
 * I would like to think that no matter how many edits a person has, all voices are equal here. ToriaURU
 * k33pz0re - This is one of those rare gems that I occasionally come across on Wikipedia. I think it's a rather clever idea and, as others have already stated, other esoteric languages are allowed their own articles. Plus, it's just freaking awesome. EDIT: I did forget to mention, though, that it could use just a little bit of revision. :) --65.184.25.185 03:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay. "it could use just a little bit of revision" - may I remind readers that this is not to be used as grounds for deletion. I'd like to add that the reason I am so strongly supporting this is that I agree, it is freaking awesome and it was the means through which I discovered esoteric languages. &mdash;EatMyShortz 04:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Actual programing language. The article is well written. Need I say more? --Hoovernj 21:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - If somebody wants to learn about this language here then let them. Its existance here doesn't hurt anyone. JesseHogan 05:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It has more value than things like HQ9+
 * Delete This to me looks like original research. It was written by the author and although it isn't harming anyone it is not something anyone will find information about anywhere else (aside from the author's own website/s). It may be an interesting article and I can see why many people would like it to remain on Wikipedia but RTM - it does not belong on here. Waveydave 17:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC).
 * KEEP! Funny, not usefull, but interesting...


 * Comment. I'm confused by the amount of anon voting on this page, but I'm also confused as to why this is still up after 2 weeks of voting. I count 11 Delete votes, 11 Keep votes, and 9 anon or possible sock-puppet votes. Appears to be no consensus to Delete, so looks like a Keep to me. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk  13:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is it still on the deletelist then? Actually, I would also say Keep. Bernard van der Wees 22:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.