Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doublefuck programming language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doublefuck programming language[edit]

Doublefuck programming language was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge with Brainfuck and redirect.

This article seems totally non-notable. About 50 google results, and about 6 not related to Wikipedia. It would appear the only information there is (or could possibly ever be) about this language is: "It's Brainfuck but with two buffers, see Brainfuck for more information."

Note that this was apparently listed on VfD in late September/early August 2004, but I could find no record of its discussion.CXI 16:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It was considered individually at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Esoteric_programming_language_related/Detail#Doublefuck_programming_language and as a block of 74 articles at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Esoteric_programming_language_related. --Korath会話 03:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fredrik | talk 16:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to brainfuck. Yelyos 16:13, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. Grue 16:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and a strong censure to the people who keep putting esoteric programming languages up for vfd. What next, delete Fermat's Last Theorem because the poor guy didn't have enough space in his margin? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • But hey? Making an arbitrary programming language is much easier than coming up with a non-obvious right statement. Wow, I invented the new language: TRIPLEFUCK! It has three memory areas! I r t3h l337z0r3st! Grue 18:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You don't know what you're talking about. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:25, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep brainfuck is big enough as it is. Add a link to it from brainfuck, and leave it where it is. — マイケル ₪ 18:18, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Unsure. I mean, if it were my decision I'd either delete (noting that despite earlier debates there are still no sources or references cited for doublefuck) or more likely merge and redirect (merging the fact that different opcodes are used and deleting as unencyclopedic exactly what these are). The only attraction I can see for this article is that it gives another opportunity to use naughty words. I think it's good to document and keep this discussion if the article is kept, and harmless to delete the article but unlikely to happen. So no censures, and no vote from me. Andrewa 20:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and go programming language yourself. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. Wyss 21:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: someone's weekend project. For some reason Wikipedians have no trouble identifying articles about garage bands as useless vanity, but if it's a garage programming language people get their panties all in a twist about deleting it. I guess this is an example of the Wikipedia nerd bias I hear about. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Fredrik | talk 22:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Very well put. Andrewa 03:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is an example of the nerd bias you've heard about :) Wyss 04:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect not different enough to be 2 articles. The command table from doublefuck can replace the command table in brainfuck. DCEdwards1966 22:01, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Good suggestion. This reduces clutter without making the information any harder to find or understand. Still no vote. Andrewa 15:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Fancruft. Delete (preferably) or merge and redirect. Kosebamse 22:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Brainfuck is just barely notable as a well-known joke in its field. This is not. --Korath会話 22:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep* Why are people trying to delete this, honestly. Are they just being prudish about the name? CiaraBeth 23:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope. It's just that it seems to be about some fucking shit that no one but a few fucked-up programmers could give Shit One about. Incidently, could we delete this fucking cant? Edeans 01:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Nope. Any more than people are voting to keep just because they're scared of any taint of censorship. Well, probably some are both ways, but most of us recognise that these aren't the main issues here. Andrewa 15:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete it doublefucking quickly. What next? My conlang I invented last weekend? The newsletter I make for my family? My scrapbook? Dr Zen 23:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge, weak redirect with apologies for being too lazy to write a brainfuck program that prints this opinion. iMeowbot~Mw 00:26, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or merge/redir. brainfuck language gets over 12K hits--doublefuck language gets less than 1K hits. Just a minor variation of brainfuck--not worth a separate article. Brainfuck article is only ~14K--plenty of room for variants. Niteowlneils 00:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect if you must; the description on brainfuck says all that needs saying. --fvw* 01:07, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now that I've found the previous listing, it seems to me that it was kept before only because it was proposed as an enormous block of deletions. I ask that it be looked at on its own merits, rather than voting with kneejerk "keep"s due its previous listing. --Korath会話 03:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. This doesn't really need an article of its own; also, it makes more sense when presented as a variant of Brainfuck rather than as an independent entity. Mindspillage 05:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect; not worthy of an article, but redirects is nice. --Golbez 05:47, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete computer language vanity. Possibly redirect to brainfuck to prevent recreation -- Cyrius|✎ 08:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and re-direct to BF. Dan100 11:40, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 13:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If doublefuck should ever grow and be a somewhat significant thing we can include it then. Not now. Shanes 13:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to BF.
    • Unsigned comment by 169.146.191.10 Grue 13:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mrwojo 16:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • MERGE Vacuum c 17:03, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity programming language. Andris 17:07, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Brainfuck. The article itself says it needs knowledge of BF to be appreciated, so that's the sensible place for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I guess redirect is ok too. Tuf-Kat 04:00, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Brainfuck - it really should be a section of that article - David Gerard 14:23, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Brainfuck. Bryan 21:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mark Richards 21:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (redirect to brainfuck). No interpreters, no compilers, no programs. silsor 01:48, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect. Neutralitytalk 03:24, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Doublefuck_programming_language&oldid=1137798413"