Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piet (programming language)

:{{la|Piet (programming language)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piet_(programming_language) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Piet (programming language)}})

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered and all that I could find in my own search are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNRELIABLE wikis and personal blogs, all unsuitable for establishing notability. Previous AfD in 2006 consisted of three WP:JUSTAVOTEs and two WP:ITSINTERESTINGs. I don't believe this subject can stand as a separate article under our guidelines but I would not object to merging this material back into Esoteric programming language#Piet. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Merge. I also did a search for some references, and ended up finding nothing more than the creator's own site. Although it seems that it should be merged back into Esoteric programming language#Piet instead of being deleted. CharmlessCoin (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

:*Merge I've seen some interest in the language in the blogs, but have not found multiple in-dpeth independent reliable sources. That the language exists is verifiable, and as one of the few (only?) color-based programming languages, it seems reasonable to include in the list of examples in Esoteric programming language. --Mark viking (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

: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.