Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeSimian programming language
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CodeSimian programming language[edit]
Non-notable programming language. 109 Google hits, and only 10 of them are considered different enough by Google; two of these are from Wikipedia. cesarb 15:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While CodeSimian is new, it is an actual programming-language, and only a few thousand programming-languages exist while maybe a million softwares exist. CodeSimian is freeware (GPL) which makes it public information. ~~BenRayfield
- Public domain is different from Freeware in any dictionary. --Perfecto 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Plug: Please come help develop the inclusion guideline Wikipedia:Notability (software) for articles such as this. --Perfecto 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- True, CodeSimian is not as popular as those rules require for software, but a programming-language is not just any kind of software. Its what is used to build software, and should be given more leniency. ~~BenRayfield
- Delete until such time as there are articles in Linux Journal or Dr. Dobbs about programming in CodeSimian. Haikupoet 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Haikupoet. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definitely non-notable. Also, "only a few thousand prog languages" is untrue; in the 1970s, languages were as plenty as programs. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-03 13:29Z
- Delete. Anyone can write a programming language and put it under the GPL. A Turing-complete programming language can be written in under 15 lines of code — and with better syntax than this language's poor imitation of Lisp. I see no reason to give leniency. --Mgreenbe 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.