Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piet 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 was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piet programming language

This article was part of the mass AfD of "Esoteric Programming languages" overturned by DRV here. It is being relisted for individual consideration. All these languages will be relisted, at five/day to prevent congestion. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Amusing idea, but not really illustrative of anything in particular. Perhaps treat briefly in Funge as a variant on the notion. flowersofnight (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages. —Ruud 21:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Equendil Talk 00:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its unique enough to keep. And forgods sake stop nominating it. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 01:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 06:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep there's nothing wrong with it.
• Keep How can you do this to me? Piet | Talk 07:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Withdraw my vote ;-) I shouldn't positively discriminate because of the thing's name. Piet | Talk 07:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Quit it. Just because you can't code Piet, doesn't mean you should delete it, Xoloz. --User:Thematrixeatsyou/sig 09:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've given up !voting on these esolang nominations for now, apart from the ones worth keeping. Piet is verifiable, moderately unusual, and seems more notable than the average esolang, according to Google. --ais523 14:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Most "Piet"s refer to Dutch individuals called Piet, not the programming langauge. Could you point out the secondary sources which make this language verifiable? —Ruud 23:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how much credence you give to the two in the article... I would consider implementations (which seem to be based on the original dangermouse page) as secondary sources, in which case you've got at least [1] and [2] (different authors, different websites, different languages; this was just from the first 2 pages of Google results, which are mostly true positives; the proportion of correct results drops off about the 7th page). I haven't mentioned the (non-Wikipedia) wiki and blog coverage here (which gives notability but not verifiability per WP:RS). --ais523 09:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons stated above Swalot 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep! Esoteric programming languages are part of the informatics culture and should be mentioned. LHOON 13:49, 6 October 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.