Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boolean English

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. — JIP | Talk 05:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boolean English

No Google hits for "Boolean English" besides Wikipedia and mirrors. I'm pretty sure this is simply made up. dbenbenn | talk 22:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. no known use anywhere. --Vsion 22:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probable OR, plus we've already got a huge mess with articles that use the word "Boolean" in conflicting ways (see e.g. Talk:Boolean algebra, Talk:Boolean logic, Talk:Complete Boolean algebra, Talk:Complete Boolean algebra (computer science), Talk:Boole's syllogistic -- and that's by no means an exhaustive list.) --Trovatore 23:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Unfortunately, there are no known uses of Boolean English in literature. - Reason for deletion given in the article itself, lol. - Bwfc 22:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have heard the term boolean english in referneceto computer code that employs english words with boolean syntax, not as simplification but as a precursor to actual computer coding. Otherwise, I have found no uses of the term. It is nonnotable. Cool3 23:44, 18 October 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.