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.
Keep. This article is quite good. It's got enough content and an explained code example. May I also remind you that "non-notability" is not a deletion criteria (
WP:DEL). --
ZeroOne23:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - example of a possible way of structuring a programming language. Intellectually interesting approach and discussion of turing completeness. Also, it's been implemented.
RJFJR01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. Stub of dubious notability; would change to "no opinion" if it explained the language more (rather than just summarizing). --
bmills03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep The arguments of people saying delete is because its non-notable. Maybe it should just be merged with Funge and given an entry of example Fungoids there? Its a real language, and its a great example of non-turing complete language. Why not delete Brainfuck as well? It's non-notable, and nothing serious has ever been written in it, and it fits all the same criteria that you're applying to Argh! Whitespace is the same way. Wikipedia is about knowledge, not about popularity.
Diablo-D308:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)reply
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.