219:
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
220:
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. Knowledge (XXG) is about knowledge, not about popularity.
151:- example of a possible way of structuring a programming language. Intellectually interesting approach and discussion of turing completeness. Also, it's been implemented.
102:. 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 (
17:
207:. Stub of dubious notability; would change to "no opinion" if it explained the language more (rather than just summarizing). --
66:
259:
36:
258:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
116:
164:
221:
140:
49:
239:
224:
211:
199:
167:
155:
143:
125:
110:
94:
79:
52:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
191:
103:
208:
136:
107:
235:
180:
121:
90:
75:
152:
70:
176:
58:
252:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
262:). No further edits should be made to this page.
82:(Thats a vote for delete, right? - Diablo-D3)
8:
115:There are some interesting arguements at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
71:http://www.esolangs.org/Main_Page
1:
240:12:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
225:08:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
212:03:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
200:03:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
168:03:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
156:01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
144:00:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
126:00:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
111:23:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
95:22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
80:22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
67:esoteric programming language
44:The result of the debate was
73:, not on Knowledge (XXG). —
279:
117:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
53:07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
255:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
270:
257:
197:
194:
187:
184:
165:OneEuropeanHeart
34:
278:
277:
273:
272:
271:
269:
268:
267:
266:
260:deletion review
253:
195:
192:
185:
182:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
276:
274:
265:
264:
247:
245:
244:
243:
242:
214:
202:
170:
158:
146:
130:
129:
128:
97:
83:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
275:
263:
261:
256:
250:
249:
248:
241:
238:
237:
232:
228:
227:
226:
223:
218:
215:
213:
210:
206:
203:
201:
198:
189:
188:
178:
174:
171:
169:
166:
162:
159:
157:
154:
150:
147:
145:
142:
138:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:
118:
114:
113:
112:
109:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
92:
87:
84:
81:
78:
77:
72:
69:. Belongs on
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
50:Mailer Diablo
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
254:
251:
246:
234:
230:
216:
204:
181:
172:
160:
148:
132:
120:
99:
89:
85:
74:
65:Non-notable
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
163:per nom. --
233:notable. —
229:Brainfuck
88:per nom. —
222:Diablo-D3
173:Redirect
137:Chris 73
108:ZeroOne
209:bmills
205:Delete
161:Delete
133:Delete
104:WP:DEL
86:Delete
193:ɹəəds
186:speer
177:Funge
153:RJFJR
106:). --
59:Argh!
16:<
236:Ruud
217:Keep
149:Keep
141:Talk
122:Ruud
100:Keep
91:Ruud
76:Ruud
175:to
135:--
119:. —
231:is
196:ɹ
190:/
179:.
139:|
48:.
183:r
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.