Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazy K (0th nomination)

from VfD:

Another of those non-notable programming "languages" where code looks like (SII(S(K(S(S(K(SII(S(S(KS)(S(K(S(KS)))(S(K(S(S(KS)(SS(S(S(KS)K))(KK))))) and stuff like that. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 02:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Undecided for now. On one hand, only 245 google hits. On the other:
 * The theory and construction of the language are quite interesting, certainly more so than most languages on List of esoteric programming languages.
 * 245 google hits is still far better than many of the entries in List of esoteric programming languages -- SNUSP programming language gets 46, Doublef*** and Gammaplex get under 5 when Wikipedia and mirrors are excluded. If I have time I'm going to VfD them. The whole esoteric languages list could do with some serious pruning, I think. Pnot 04:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mikkalai 05:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. jni 10:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: nonnotable vanity project. My own very-far-from-notable vanity software project gets 360 hits, "there are other nonnotable languages that have articles" isn't an argument for including this one, and whether or not Lazy K embodies some interesting ideas is irrelevant. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't so much "x is nonnotable but has an article" as "Where is the notability bar for esoteric programming languages?" It seemed to me that Wikipedia contains many programming languages of dubious notability, so I was trying to discover whether this indicates a current consensus that (say) 200 Google hits makes a programming language notable. But I agree that I was wrong to take its interestingness into consideration. Pnot 01:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Many of the esoteric programming languages fall into the same category as well.  -Sean Curtin 01:08, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * My theory is that, as a general rule of thumb, the bar for notability is too low if random people could decide, if they want an article, to easily do something that would get them one that's not spectacularly illegal, stupid, or both. Inventing a toy language is far too easy and insignificant. --Improv 03:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is not popularity, and Google rankings are not everything.  I think that this language is notable because it is very different from other programming languages, however.  The article does need to be expanded, however.  --L33tminion | (talk) 05:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * As another plus, this prompted me to write a new article on SKI combinator calculus. W00t!  --L33tminion | (talk) 02:59, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 20:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * keep I agree with L33tminion on reason for notability -- WhiteDragon 23:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * keep I agree with L33tminion. --ShaunMacPherson 07:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please do not nominate articles just because you do not understand them. A programming language that manages with only three commands is certainly interesting. The esoteric programming languages are definitely much more interesting than the "Xyz (population 132) is a town in the middle of nowhere" articles by User:Rambot. ;P Besides, Wikipedia currently features the most extensive list of esoteric programming languages in the web. I don't see why we couldn't keep it like that. --ZeroOne 19:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. An innovative minimalistic functional programming language.  I'm a Scheme geek and this is the kind of thing that makes all those pesky brackets worthwhile.  I undertake to add a link to Ben Rudiak-Gould's Lazy K interpreter written in Scheme, lazier.scm, so any interested fellow schemer will be able to try it out.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion