Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuck (programming language)

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. If someone does want to redirect the title to Esoteric programming language then that's fine, but since nobody is proposing a merge the content will be deleted. Hut 8.5 21:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck (programming language)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find enough significant reliable coverage for this programming language. Given the common name, it's possible there may have been mentions that I may have missed, so if coverage exists there, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing around on the code-golf section of Stack Overflow and noticed that many submissions were written in a language called Stuck. Apparently, a language developed to write Python in as few characters (bytes) as possible. Of course I went to Wikipedia to find out more, but to my surprise, no page. The documentation that I have found so far is a wikipage on esolangs.org describing the syntax, and a git-book that goes more in depth. If you check out Stack Overflow, you will see a lot of people using it, so I assume I am definitely not the first person to turn to Wikipedia to find a blank page. Let me see if I can dig up better docs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMolter (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 02:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the git-hub code.

The language was originally developed by a stack exchange user (screenname Shebang) and the author describes how the interpreter works in the following forum post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMolter (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are primary and thus do not contribute to notability. Googling turned up nothing helpful. WP is not for things made up one day. Msnicki (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree, its short on secondary sources, but there are secondary sources. Further, having seen it more than once on SE, its not really a 'made up in one day' sort of thing. Other esoteric languages get their spot on [the esoteric language page] and many have their own independent page despite being equally obscure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.176.1.33 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find secondary sources, please identify them. I am willing to change my !vote if suitable sources can be found, even if they are not yet cited in the article. But from what I can see, no such sources exist. Msnicki (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I will totally reconsider if decent sources can be produced, but I could not find them. I admit it doesn't help that "stuck" is a word so often used in the context of programming. ubiquity (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research, even the sources I linked to in the paragraph above (i.e. GitBook, Wiki, and Forum posts) turned out to be written by different online aliases of the language's author. I have to agree. Not independently verifiable. Unfortunate that there isn't more to go on.

Would this be better as a mention on the Esoteric programming languages page? Or does it not belong there either? I was just hoping that if someone else had the same experience that I did, they would be able to rely on Wikipedia to provide some information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMolter (talk • contribs) 12:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for inclusion on Esoteric programming language seems very low. Many of the languages mentioned are not documented at all, and Stuck is, putting it well ahead of the pack. I have taken the liberty of adding a paragraph about Stuck to the page. I still think the page under discussion should be deleted, but I wouldn't dispute changing it to a redirect. ubiquity (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still not enough convincing information and substance to suggest its own currently convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 04:52, 20 July 2016 (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.