Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wierd (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 delete. Punkmorten 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wierd (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 16:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn befunge/brainfuck clone. —Ruud 12:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it is quite unique and is not a clone of the above ---AM088 21:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I concur, it is not a clone and is an interesting interpretation and implementation of a minimalist programming language. This could be applicable to embedded systems or programmable integrated circuits (PIC) which have extremely limited (relative) memory storage capacity --Neo 08:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Esoteric to the point of uselessness, and ultimately non-notable. It's not useful for PIC programming, as there is no hardware that implements it. The instruction encoding scheme is unusual, but that's about it - the instruction set is functionally equivalent to that seen in Brainfuck-family languages. Zetawoof^(ζ) 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It'd pain me to see this one go, a little bit, because I found the article quite interesting... but remember that being interesting doesn't mean it's notable. Duke it out! Dekimasu 11:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see how this language is notable. JIP | Talk 12:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it's interesting (and proof that the people who write programming languages really are just trying to confuse me) but I don't see anything that even claims notability. It exists, yeah, but is anyone using it? Has anyone written about it? It doesn't appear so. Recury 14:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is a really interesting language, but at Dekimasu said, interesting != notable. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Curiosity != encyclopedia notable. Not to mention that employing visual appearance to help with SW development isn't the newest idea. Pavel Vozenilek 19:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If this were a really well-written article it would be worth keeping. The language itself doesn't seem notable enough. EdJohnston 22:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons above. Gazpacho 23:53, 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.