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 no consensus to delete, minus the socks. If there is a consenus to merge and redirect, just go ahead and do so, no sysop action is required. Mailer Diablo 16:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable rubbish (though probably true), if keeping this non-notable language, please consider a redirect to David Morgan-Mar

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

• Chef programming language
• Whenever

MacRusgail 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to David Morgan-Mar (as I tried a few weeks ago.) David Morgan-Mar is probably just notable enough to warrant an article, but his languages are not (and Ook! just being very lame Brainfuck rip-off.) Even Esolang lists it as just a joke language. —Ruud 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. On second though I think DMM will not pass WP:BIO and that his languages are just not notable enough to be included. —Ruud 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom, does exist though not notable. Only 135 unique Google results [1] --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was invented as a joke, but it was a good joke. I first learn about it from Wikipedia and it made my day. Everybody (mostly professional software developers) I showed this page liked it too. By the way its description as Turing-complete is correct. Also, article is well written. --Vlad1 05:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being a good joke is not a sufficient criterion for getting an article (or I'd be off to write The Priest, the Minister and the Rabbi walk into a bar...). GRuban 17:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Additional comment. This is an article with long edit history and multiple contributors. Wikipedia contains several articles of this type, see for example COW_programming_language, but Ook_programming_language seems to be the most detailed one among them. The article does not contain any incorrect or unverified information, and it is a good and amusing read. To those who want to merge, may I suggest a principle: if it is not broken, do not fix it. You cannot merge it withDavid Morgan-Mar (which is a shorter article than this one) without either loss of information, or having the combined article look ugly. Confirming Keep vote --Vlad1 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused. If you wanted them to be merged into his article and redirected... why didn't you? kotepho 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I don't. I want them to be deleted, but not everyone would agree... --MacRusgail 06:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect but certainly not delete. I've heard of Ook! before but I don't think it is notable for its own article, but surely we can have them all in a lump. kotepho 05:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to David Morgan-Mar. Royboycrashfan 06:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect per nominator, or to esoteric programming language. There are languages of this kind and I don't see how Ook! is particularly notable among them. JIP | Talk 06:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep quite good and relevant if it's Turing complete. And Vlad1's comment shows it's relevant to programmers too. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft. How many people are using this to write actual code? What academic sources have discussed the significance of this language? Whan new ground does it break? This is the programming equivalent of something made up in school one day. Just zis Guy you know? 13:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to any suitable article. --Terence Ong 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Since when are gags encyclopedic? RGTraynor 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Wikipedia is not paper. David Morgan-Mar's languages ought to be regarded as subpages of his page. So the question is: Would his page be too long if all content about his langagues was merged to his page. I feel the answer is yes. At any rate, this is clearly a matter for his article's talk page. Maybe merge all to Programming langauges of David Morgan-Mar? JeffBurdges 12:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and redirect to DM. It's just a trivial translation of Brainfuck. If that deserved an article, I could make a program to generate an infinite number of Wikipedia articles. GRuban 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although these are clearly "jokey" languages, each of them is, in some way, illuminating, and I can quite easily imagine these languages being discussed in a classroom environment. Ook shows in an amusing way that a Turing-complete language can be superficially very simple, Chef explicitly draws on a common teaching metaphor, and so on. I fully agree with Just zis Guy you know?'s point that people don't use these languages to write actual code, and that they don't break any new ground. These languages are useless for programming, but useful for the light they shine on their underlying concepts. If the general feeling is that these articles are merged into some larger whole, I wouldn't mind too much, but keeping them as separate pages isn't killing any extra trees, so for now I'm minded to vote Keep. WMMartin 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: please stop renominating articles just because you have failed to have them deleted or because you don't understand the contents: repeated nominations have been in the past seen as disruption. Furthermore, the point of an encyclopedia is not to look up stuff you already know about: the point is to discover stuff you didn't already know. It should therefore come as no surprise if the content of an article is unfamiliar or even looks stupid. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't know this bad joke had already been nominated. --MacRusgail 17:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep if everything had to be deadpan serious, a lot fewer people would use Wikipedia. I wouldn't. (note, anon addition by 213.222.35.125: first edit)
• Keep: Because this is similar to other joke languages like Brainfuck or Malboge does not mean it should be deleted. It is still funny and we need fun. (note, anon addition by 195.6.25.114: first edit)
• Keep Even though it's not used for serious work, it's still a perfectly valid, Turing-complete programing language. (note, anon addition by 194.144.31.172: first edit)
• Keep As as demonstration of how pop culture infiltrates everything. (note, anon addition by Akaihyo)
• Keep: It doesn't violate any of the "grounds for speedy deletion" criteria; and if usefulness were a required feature of every article, Wikipedia would be a lot smaller! It's an actual language, it properly illustrates programming principles, and is also amusing to boot. I say Keep; the purpose of an encyclopedia is to gather knowledge, not to exclude it. (note, anon addition by Eringryffin: first edit)
• Merge and redirect per Ruud - program cruft. --ImpartialCelt 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ansud

• Hey, what happened to free encyclopedia ? As we know it's a storage of knowledge, but why that programming language (may be written for interest or like a parody) can't be stored in here ? It's just a knowledge like others articles. And if your children ask ypou @daddy, WTF is Ook language, you can't say "RTFM, darling."
• Notable enough for me (see the handy chart at User:R._Koot/Esoteric_programming_languages) and by a notable author. Keep all 3 languages. Failing that, merge to David Morgan-Mar's article or to a Programming langauges of David Morgan-Mar as JeffBurdges suggests. I will do it if that's the outcome, just userify the articles to me and let me know. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BALLS, I think. Stifle 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not everything that falls out of David's brain on a friday afternoon is notable. Give me some reliable external sources, and I may change my mind. - Hahnchen 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - how many times will you nominate the same article within a month? Ambarish 02:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Sure, it's a joke language, but it's an informative article, and it could be used to write programs (being equivalent to Brainfuck). No reason not to keep. Rwald 10:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Angelo 11:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't believe this is up for deletion! Speedy keep and expand! Misza13 ^{T C} 17:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. I didn´t knew what was Ook! until I read it on Drupal. Those guys told the community that they wanted to migrate from php to Ook!

It is nice to know that when you are told about something, you can always read more about it here, at wikipedia. Ook! is a joke (I don´t care if it is a good one or a bad one), but it exists and that´s the important thing here. Why deleting it? Wikipedia is not (or shouldn´t be) a Judge, it is just an encyclopedia. If it exists, it should be here. Period.. Rosamunda - Buenos Aires - Argentina This is the user's only contribution to Wikipedia

• Extremely Strong Keep - I saw a reference to Ook! but did not know what it was, so i looked it up here. Yes, Ook! is a programmer’s joke. It is also part of our culture. This article is informative, well written, accurate, and referenced by other sites. Just because some may find it irrelevant, offensive, or fail to find it amusing doesn’t mean others won’t find value in it. The suggestion it be deleted is preposterous. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; it is not limited by the number of articles. There is no harm in having such entries and no reason to remove useful reference material; Wikipedia would be diminished by such a loss. We shouldn’t even be having this discussion! – T.O. Rainy Day 1 April 2006 user's 4th contribution

• Save the baby Ooks! - Yes, OF COURSE this is a joke language. So what? The Drupal page mentioned above lists code written in this language. That page links to this article. I got a chuckle out of the Drupal article and followed that link to learn more about the language. Isn't that what encyclopedias are for? If the article had been removed, I would have clicked on a dead link. How would that have made my day better? The next thing you know, we'll start deleting articles about comedians who tell bad jokes. Michael Geary 01:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Nominator makes no compelling argument for deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. --maru (talk) contribs 03:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. chocolateboy 03:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am aware of this discussion, but will not contribute, as I do not believe that I should participate in any such discussion on articles about me or my programming languages. -dmmaus 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Strong Keep Any page that links to Terry Pratchett has worth.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinaxina (talk • contribs) and is the user's only contribution to Wikipedia

• Delete or merge with Brainfuck. Ook! is not a different language from Brainfuck. —Felix the Cassowary 06:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ook!. It is one of only a few joke programming languages that are widely enough known in the computer science community to deserve WP articles of their own.
  Note that the nominator of this article has also nominated Chef and Whenever for deletion, and has apparently merged the nominations with this one. This is wrong. Chef and Whenever are not widely known and would be good candidates for merging into David's article, while Ook! is notable and deserves its own. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to separate the nominations appropriately? — Haeleth Talk 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Extremely Strong Keep OoK! and Chef. I find all these esoteric languages interesting (especially Chef); They have a certain beauty. As someone said, if it's not broken, don't fix it. I don't know what would be gained from the deletion of both articles, and believe that they are to big to be in sections of their author's article. On the other hand, the article about Whenever is just a stub, and could be moved. FiP 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. This is not an inherently interesting programming language, because it's similar or identical to Brainfuck. A single paragraph in the author's article will suffice to explain the language.-gadfium 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely Strong Keep - So what if its similar? It is a programming language, albeit similar, but it's an excellent article, and I was just looking for it; thankfully I found it! Putting it under 'David Morgan-Mar' is nonsense, it would make his page hugely long and complicated. 05:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Offhand? Keep almost any article whose edit history is long and varied enough that it is obvious we have enough interested editors to keep the article accurate. This criterion is less contentious than "notability" and does almost the same job. DanielCristofani 07:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear Keep. A couple of minutes ago, I remembered having read about Ook! several years ago and checked to see if we have an article on it - which should serve to demnonstrate that even articles on joke languages can have some research value. Wikipedia is not paper, and we don't gain anything by deleting these articles (I could live with a merge and redirect, though - but outright deletion is out of the question). -- Ferkelparade π 10:34, 5 April 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.