Talk:Cryptol

Deletion review

This went through deletion review. Conclusion:

Cryptol – No consensus to overturn. No prejudice against re-creation once sufficient sources are available and added to the article.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC) – Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC

I've since commented out categories, etc. I would attempt to source this if I could, but it's far outside my areas of competence, let alone expertise. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Returned to mainspace

There are now five reliable sources in the article so I have restored it to mainspace. SilkTork *^YES! 19:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the DRV, I don't have a problem with the article per se but I'd like a consensus review of it and the sourcing. It still looks too light, and I'd rather save the fuss of another AFD when a simple up and down DRV can hash it out. rootology (C)(T) 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think your action was too strong and too quick. The concern was regarding sources, and you have clearly not had time to check out the sources. SilkTork *^YES! 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, before I did the move back, I had plenty of time to review the three very, very short sources. There wasn't a whole lot to them. :( rootology (C)(T) 20:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

More refs

If someone is looking for them, Google Scholar has some more references that could be researched. —Noah 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazing.

So this is a private language. You pay to learn it and use it? 197.185.100.10 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)