Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NULL 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NULL programming language
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 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, the idea of this language sounds rather interesting. J I P  | Talk 12:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since when did "being interesting" allow use to ignore WP:V? (Generally "interesting" things will be written enough about to become WP:V, but not in this case). —Ruud 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dozens of such languages could be invented. This article doesn't present interesting information except the claim of "zero-dimensionality" (what's that?) and doesn't provide valuable insight into numerics or computer science and is not even funny.
 * [Encoding some information into a large integer which is operated on later was at least once presented as a compression technique in computer science (I did my thesis about encoding of 3D objects in such a way (my result: no advantages compared to the classical data structures)).]  Pavel Vozenilek 14:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The only interesting thing about NULL is that it works like a canonical way to enumerate differently working programs in a basic, minimal Turing-complete language. If Wikipedia already has an article about that, then I might change my vote to "delete". J I P  | Talk 14:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The merit of this esoteric language aside, which shouldn't be a criteria for inclusion, this "programming language" is completely non notable. Compare with Brainfuck for an esoteric 'joke' language that *is* notable. Equendil Talk 19:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a programming language - if someone can be bothered to write it, and someone can also be bothered to create an article for it, in my eyes it's worth keeping. doktorrob&trade; 20:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Worth keeping at the EsoLang Wiki where they have more room for those hunderds of languages and are not bothered by WP:V. —Ruud 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this should probably be merged to Gödel numbering, as this is the first use I've seen to break down into executable components. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No! Please don't add useless trivia/cruft to genuinly encyclopedic articles. —Ruud 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per my rationale at Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages (WP:V: no secondary sources have been published on this language). —Ruud 21:01, 26 September 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.