 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
From VfD
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Another apparently lost/orphaned VfD nom, as I can't find a record of a voting page. Tagged September 29. Note that many of the google hits are for coincidental occurences of "xml" next to the letter "o", not this language. Procedural/weak delete. Niteowlneils 22:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete not notable --fvw* 23:10, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. David Johnson 23:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable programming language, and likely more so than many others in Category:Esoteric programming languages. [1] Samaritan 01:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Neutral, seems like maybe a promising enough idea to merit an article even if it is not yet in widespread use. However (1) it should be at o:XML unless that creates a namespace problem and (2) this substub is so minimal I suppose it would be no great loss if deleted. Here's a moderately interesting commentary on o:XML. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:03, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This was one of the mass-nominated esoteric languages from a while ago; I can't find where the archives of that ended up, but I'm pretty sure this is one of the few that got a keep vote regardless of the merits of the batch as a whole. In fact, it isn't particularly esoteric; it is a serious language and moderately notable (try structuring your Google query like this). Yes, the name technically should be o:XML, and fear of namespace problems is probably why it is here. Perhaps we could have a namespace guru tell us what would happen if it was moved. Securiger 09:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Needs a name limited by technical limitations plate. --L33tminion | (talk) 02:58, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete not notable -- 18:24, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Above vote left unsigned by user Fledgeling.
- Keep it, it seems quite noteworthy and easily worthy of inclusion here. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Invalid vfd (default to keep) : esoteric languages were already voted on before, and consensus was achieved Kim Bruning 18:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Can you provide a link, Kim? --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- keep -- WhiteDragon 22:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.