Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ook! programming language (second nomination)


 * 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. Nandesuka 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ook! 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 04:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This article has two previous AfDs, both of which may be found through this link. Xoloz 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This one, like a number of the other "esoteric programming languages", was created as a joke, not as a practical programming language, and hasn't gained any real following (unlike, for example, Intercal and Brainfuck). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 06:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Zetawoof. J I P  | Talk 12:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As a software engineer and Terry Pratchett fan, this brings a smile to my face, and this is not the first time I read about the "Ook! programming language", but as a Wikipedian, I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion. Equendil Talk 19:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - does this even exist?Bakaman Bakatalk 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, it exists.DanielCristofani 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zetawoof. —Ruud 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ook! Equendil Talk 00:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Was that a 'delete' "ook", or a 'keep' "ook"? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ook! Oook! Equendil Talk 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It may be worth reading the transwiki interwiki list before jumping in and saying 'delete'; it was doing quite well on its previous AfD (linked above), and it has survived AfDs on other Wikipedias before. On the other hand, there isn't really much useful information here. I was going to vote !'neutral' but then checked Google and saw tens of thousands of hits (about 70000 counting Wikipedia mirrors, about 60000 with my efforts to exclude them), which is quite a lot for an esoteric programming language. --ais523 10:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How on earth did you end up with tens of thousand hits ? Equendil Talk 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Ook%21+%22programming+language%22+-wikipedia+-encyclopedia&btnG=Search is about 62300 hits for me. --ais523 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, "ook" is a dutch word. Equendil Talk 15:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Check past the first page of results; over 80% of the results are real (as opposed to being false positives). --ais523 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not anywhere close to 80% from what I can tell, but anyway, the point is, it's more or less impossible to tell how many Google hits are actually relevant here, especially seeing as the top hits displayed (up to 1000) by Google are the "best match" Google can find. Equendil Talk 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I counted pages about esoteric progamming languages that mentioned Ook! as true positives, even if they were about a different language; the test was an attempt to gauge the size of Ook!'s following. --ais523 17:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, compare a search on "brainfuck programming language" (exact sentence), and "ook! programming language" . Brainfuck is the language from which "ook!" is derived. Quite a contrast. Equendil Talk 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with grouping "programming language" with ook! in the search; that's going to produce far too many false negatives, which are much harder to spot than false positives. --ais523 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Maybe a useless programming language but notable nonetheless. Asterion talk
 * 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.