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. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of esoteric programming languages[edit]

This list should be deleted because is consist mainly of external links to "specifications" of esoteric programming languages of which a large number already have had their article deleted. A similar list is already available at the Esolang Wiki. —Ruud 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. —Ruud 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak delete sad to see it go (if only for BANCStar), but it does appear to be listcruft, and an external link to the Esolang wiki from Esoteric programming language would serve us well enough. —ptk✰fgs 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ironically the BANCstar entry is not included at the Esolang Wiki because they did not consider it to be an esoteric programming language. —Ruud 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spammy. The languages we have articles for are better organized by the category anyway. Punkmorten 20:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Prune the list of any languages that do not merit articles. If redlinks still remain after that process, keep, because an alphabetical list that indicates topics that Wikipedia should cover but does not yet provides more information than a category alone would. Postdlf 20:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All notable and borderline-notable esoteric programming languages already have articles (see Category:Esoteric programming languages.) The redlinks currenty in the list are of articles which have been deleted in the last few weeks (a majority of the articles on esoteric programming languages have been deleted; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages), the externals link point to articles which either have been deleted a longer time ago or are highly non-notable as established by previous deletion debates. —Ruud 22:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So remove all of the external and redlinks, and I'll watch to see if that change sticks in the list article. Postdlf 22:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The article has been pruned due to the above comment; the original version is here. --ais523 07:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, delete now that the list serves no function beyond the category. Postdlf 14:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the revised version is exactly the same as the category and I don't see what purpose it serves. —ptk✰fgs 09:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you delete this, you will need to find another example for Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_as_a_reason_for_merging. --Sbluen 20:25, 21 October 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.