Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VALGOL 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 of the debate was No consensus. I count 12 deletes, 5 merges, and 3 keeps. On a strict vote-counting schema, this translates to 60% consensus to delete, which is not enough. These articles should probably be merged because that's the highest number of non-delete votes, but even among the five merge votes, there is exactly two for InfoWorld joke languages, one for Joke programming languages, one for InfoWorld joke programming languages, and one with no suggestion. Where these articles should be merged to is a debate that doesn't need an AfD to determine. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

=== VALGOL programming language, SIMPLE programming language, SLOBOL programming language, LAIDBACK, Sartre programming language, FIFTH programming language, C- programming language, LITHP programming language, DOGO programming language === ... is a fictional programming language invented by John Unger Zussman as a spoof of ... and San Fernando Valley slang (valspeak). It appears in a humorous list of "lesser known languages", published in InfoWorld in 1982 and later posted to Usenet. This is the original text pertaining to ...: Oh my... —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. —Ruud 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable programming languages. -- SYCTHOS talk 01:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to Joke programming languages or similar. These are an important part of computer humor culture. You are obviously taking them too seriously. --ZeroOne 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * ...important part of computer humor culture. Evidence? I can't find it. And don't find them particularly funny no. —Ruud 01:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on your definition of "important" ... it's widely known at any rate. Try this search. At least 100 hits for VALGOL, including grammars, derivative works, compiler implementations, mentions in other sources. A lot of it is just references to the same material but that does show notability. That it is not particularly funny is not particularly relevant to whether it's part of a culture or not. + +Lar: t/c 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That was just a response the me "taking this too seriously" and did not influence my vote. Also, this search only gives me 167 unique hits, most not very relevant. —Ruud 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * weak merge (and conditional on finding a place to merge it to). RJFJR 01:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC) on further consideration I retract voting either way. RJFJR 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and wasting our time. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 01:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom unless claims of being "important part of computer humor culture" can be substantiated. VegaDark 02:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to WikiSource; barring that, merge all and redirect to InfoWorld joke languages or delete. Usenet publishing is public-domain, isn't it?  The articles describe interesting languages, I'm just not sure they're encyclopedic.  --bmills 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. These articles aren't causing anyone any problems.  Let them be. - ikkyu2  ( talk ) 04:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. KramarDanIkabu 05:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all - these are all entries from a single mag article?! worst case, merge them all.  (No need to transwiki this anywhere, unlike the source code articles). —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-25 05:47Z 
 * Delete Yup, I saw these ages ago, didn't want to AfD because there's that many articles and AFDing them is a lot of work, coincidentally I was going to go prodding these today seeing how there's a lot of esoteric languages in prod and no one's really contesting those... anyway, the point of the ramble is: Delete the lot. These are joke languages. It's an old joke, it's a well-known joke (included in the fortune(6) database at least in Linux), but I really don't think it's a notable joke and you can't get much more fun out of it than just the quotations out of the mag article. Certainly the heck not worth making separate articles for each! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps a mention in Internet humor (or such), but certainly not separate articles. Camillus (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this cruft per WP:NFT Just zis Guy you know? 14:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge them in one article. --Tone 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Either Keep or Merge into one article. Old joke, but well known... people have written grammars for some of these languages. This comment is NOT under any circumstances to be interpreted as straight delete without at least a merge. I remember reading about these back in the 80s... an InfoWorld article is, with all respect to my esteemed colleauge JzG, not something made up in school one day. + +Lar: t/c 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense to the person that wrote the grammar, but even that could easily have been done in "one school day". It's still nothing more than an extended joke.  The grammar wasn't that well-thought out, e.g. "Y*KNOW" translates to the multiplication of Y times KNOW, which is not what the valleyspeak intends.  If we merge them all we have to delete the giant quotes to avoid reconstructing the Infoworld article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-25 19:39Z 
 * Well sure, it's not a perfect grammar and could have been done relatively quickly but the language phenomenon is more than just something made up in school one day by one person. I mentioned the grammar to substantiate notability for the language, not because it's perfect. People refer to VALGOL in other works fairly frequently. Heck, even some of the delete votes (User:Wwwwolf for instance) concede notability, saying it's well known. I don't see why this needs deleting. At most, merge into one article (although that was proposed before for the 70-odd minor languages but not done). + +Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ALL as unencyclopedic. -- Krash (Talk) 22:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: Previous AfD round results: Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming language related --ZeroOne 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all (preferred) or merge all into single article. – Doug Bell talk&bull;contrib 18:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. Interesting, entertaining, and certainly worth the space they take up. Rinne na dTrosc 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really a question of whether they're interesting, entertaining, or worth the space. Rather, the question at hand is, "do these articles belong in an encyclopedia?"  &mdash;bmills 00:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that indeed is the question. And the answer is: Yes they do, because they're a notable (published in a major magazine as a complete article, not just a mention, and then repeatedly referenced in multiple sources) enough part of computer culture/lore to merit inclusion. One article for all of them authored by the same author is fine, and set up redirects for all of them to that article, sure... but delete? No. Wrong answer. (as I said above) + +Lar: t/c 15:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not notable individually, but notable collectively as part of hacker culture so merge to a single article. Suggest title InfoWorld joke languages per bmills.  —Blotwell 03:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to InfoWorld joke programming languages, or somesuch. Stifle 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge merge them. Snakes 22:46, 3 March 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.