Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiki (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 delete. Mind matrix  00:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki (Programming Language)
non-noteable, unverifiable Tedernst | talk 05:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete tounge in cheek attack against the Wiki concept disguised as a programing language. --Pboyd04 05:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Check out the links provided if you think it is "unverifiable," but that doesn't change the fact that it entirely non-notable. Might gain notability as a Wiki parody someday, but for the time being it is a definite delete.--Frag 08:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because someone puts up a website saying there's a thing, don't mean that thing really is so, the way I see it. Tedernst | talk 16:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, attack  Sceptre ( Talk ) 12:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * delete attack etc as above J\/\/estbrook       17:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN quite subtle, really :-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, attack, unverifiable --Quarl 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, but I don't really see the attack element. rodii 23:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, nonsense, original research (!). -- ReyBrujo 02:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, Why are you saying that it is "nonsense" and that it does not exist when in fact a quick look at the pages the links point too shows a compiler and a bit of details on how it works. I agree that it is questionable if the article should be kept. But I think that you are voting for deletion for all the wrong reasons. As some of you state "attack" as the only reason you want it deleted. Doesn't that go against being npov? Should you not disregard that it mocks wikipedia and look at the other aspects of it? &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 130.243.161.198 (talk &bull; contribs)


 * 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.