Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TUNES

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 22 to Apr 29 2004, kept as consensus was not reached. Discussion:

Not notable. Interesting concept, but started in '94 and still in the design stage? Nothing indicating it is encyclopdia-worthy. Basically an advert. SWAdair | Talk 07:40, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's not really an "advert", for there's no commercial entity behind. Basically, TUNES is almost pure vaporware from its author (which I happen to know personally). Take it rather as a bunch of ideas and suggestions on how computing could be possibly done. Indeed, it should be deleted. David.Monniaux 07:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Neutral. It's not really vaporware, as they've released a working version of their programming language Slate. Fredrik 08:27, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if your goal is to reform programming languages, operating systems etc..., 3000 lines of Lisp are nothing. Is Wikipedia a directory of free software projects in their early stages? There's Freshmeat for this. If we add Tunes, then we should allow adding just about any academic project. David.Monniaux 08:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm neutral, which means I'm not in favor of keeping it. It should be noted that a large bunch of the programming languages already covered on Wikipedia are nothing but academic projects with far less than 3000 lines of code in their implementation and even fewer users than this. That's a matter for an eventual Slate programming language, however. Again, neutral, and the votes for deletion are in majority, so no issue here. Fredrik 09:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Delete: insignificant. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Appears to be a valid project - Tεx τ urε 15:47, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Cribcage 01:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. anthony (see warning)
Delete. It might become something significant, but it's far from it for now. gabby 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note this vote was cast by a new user with fewer than ten edits. Barnaby dawson 13:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End discussion