Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnePL


 * 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. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OnePL

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a very simple programming language which is "early in development and is still very primitive" and for which "nothing has yet been released." No source is cited, and a search finds no evidence that it exists. Likely hoax or something made up one day, certainly not notable. PROD removed by IP. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't sign who you are! Noname4Million (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

research]] and clearly has not reached a state of notability yet. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, an esoteric programming language with no real world coverage, as far as I can tell. Maybe when the interpreter is finished, someone will write about OnePL in a reliable source, but until then the language will fail WP:N.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete Clearly non-notable: article states it is still "early in development", with no evidence it will ever get any further. If it ever gets to a stage of development where there are reliable references to it, then will be the time to create such an article. Anaxial (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if it ISN'T a hoax (as claimed by the anonymous IP) it is [[WP:OR|original
 * Don't Delete I admit it, I created this language, but I am actualy working on an interpreter, I can't cite sources because this is my invention. All the things I state in this article are the actual syntax! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noname4million (talk • contribs) 15:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * — Noname4million (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment If it's your own invention, with no third party sources, it's Original Research, and, as such, will have to be deleted anyway. Sorry. Anaxial (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * STRONG Delete, non notable, probably HOAX language with no useful purpose...syntax includes no logic or program branch statements. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment,article authors recent actions include the desperate act of editing others comments on the articles talk page, as well as inventing a home page for this alledged language. Said home page simply states release will be 2/1/2009 (tommorrow), and refers reader back to the wikipedia article for more info. Circular logic! If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, somebody better hope it's not duck season....oh wait, it IS Duck Season!!!! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment,per WP:SNOW will somebody please pull the trigger and put this hoax out of it's misery? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconded Peridon (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Very primitive? Stonehenge's software was probably more advanced. Hoax. Remote possibility that someone is re-inventing the wheel, but unlikely. Peridon (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if an interpreter is released, it still won't be notable. Midnight Madness (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete due to utter lack of sources and original research. —C.Fred (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete hoaxalicious. Also, keep an eye on . JuJube (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2009 (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.