Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fp code

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fp code

plus: talk:fp code, fail, outcome, now and fail, now and fail statement, NOW AND FAIL statement, do statement and DO statement. (I think that is all.)

A formal logic system created by pyenos in September 2005. Total nonsense / original research. I tagged this for speedy but the author removed the tag. -- RHaworth 06:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It is not important but does it have to be important? Pyenos 07:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hey Pyenos. It is obvious that you have put a LOT of work into that article, however Wikipedia has a policiy on not listing original research (as it is an encyclopaedia, so it has to go with commonly accepted facts). However, if you are able to show real-world/practical applications of Fp code and its advantages/disadvantages to other programming languages, I would be happy to change my vote. It is, however, important that articles in Wikipedia are on notable things so that it does become a research source. I hope you don't get discouraged by all of this, as I'm sure you would be able to contribute to a lot of other articles out there.cheers, alf 11:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. OR. Dottore So 11:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: it's only original research because the author has yet to publish it elsewhere, but it is original. Also slapped wrist to RHaworth for tagging it nonsense: it is not patent nonsense. - mholland 12:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Definitely get rid of the associated cruft articles, though. - mholland 12:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as nonsense and OR. (Comment to mholland: all OR is OR "because the author has yet to publish it elsewhere", by definition.) And I have studied logic, but the article is incomprehensible to me. MCB 17:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Carnildo 23:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I purposely didn't use jargons and to me, although it is not important, it is consistent and complete. I could elaborate further, especially its application in computation but I thought this is for general audience. MCB, it is incomprehensible to you, probably because I didn't explain it using conventional logic, which was my intention. Why is it a nonsense if it works? It can work with a very simple program and it will automatically reduce to an outcome. Sorry if I made a mistake in writing this article. It seems you guys prefer me being a machine than being a human. I have a tendancy to think like a machine but I thought that was not appropriate. Do what you like with articles, but I could fill twenty or more full articles with the foundation of what I have wrote in Fp code, which I chose not to. My understanding was that this is for general audience and I had an interesting idea so I wanted to share it. I could do much more without being technical, such as to write a decoder program like in Geek Code. That may well happen if I do decide to develop this concept further. Please do understand that it was not my intention to post a garbage article. Bye. Pyenos 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No original research, also, User:Pyenos is basically describing Automata Theory and Compiler theory Project2501a 00:34, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.