Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiny programming languages

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, no consensus on redirect, but anyone can create it so I'll leave it up to you guys. :) - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny programming languages[edit]

This article has been a stub for almost a year and nobody has done anything with it. As currently written, it's pretty much of a disaster. ~~Perhaps it should just be redirected to Domain-specific programming language?~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I first proposed this, I wasn't sure if delete or redirect made more sense. Based on the discussion, I've come to the conclusion that Delete is the right thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there will be someday when a user expands stubs. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is "tiny programming language" an established compsci term? ~~If it's not, I vote delete as WP:OR/defining a new term.~~ --Muchness 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an established term. Delete as neologism. Fan1967 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. --Muchness 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Domain-specific programming language. The article is unverifiable original research made up in school after the first class of Compiler Construction 101. I doubt the described language exists or has a chance of existing other than as a joke. Little languages do exist and there is an article about those. Weregerbil 15:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Weregerbil. -- Alpha269 15:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Domain-specific programming language per above. --Muchness 15:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a neologism, then it seems to me delete would make more sense than a redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess "small/tiny/little (programming) language" are all the same, none of the terms is any more "official" than the others. IMHO delete as unlikely typo is just as fine, especially given that the title is plural. Or create all redirects: small/tiny/little/wee = 4, with "programming" or not = 2, plural or singular = 2, total = 16 variants :-) Weregerbil 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget small language (computer science), plus all the combinatorial varients on that :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deleting; I voted redirect because a) redirects take up minimal resources, and b) this is a plausible phrase, so a redirect would aid searches. --Muchness 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as worthless. This has looked virtually the same since July 5 of last year. There is absolutely no indication that anyone will take an interest in it and expand it. The original author probably thought this was a good article as it is. Just get rid of it. Brian G. Crawford 17:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note There's a semi-related discussion going on at [1] -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term doesn't exist. —Ruud 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ε γκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not redirect. Would anybody want to redirect Tiny dogs, Tiny mathematical formula or Tiny atoms? EricR 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GRuban 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --MaNeMeBasat 15:52, 10 March 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.