- 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. Anas talk? 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Black magic (programming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Various reasons here. Biggest one I see is that this entry pretty much constitutes a dictionary definition. We can likely go on a copyvio as this is an almost exact duplicate of the term's entry on the Jargon File, but I'd rather someone else make that call. Finally, there's a lack of citations for this rather sparse entry to Wikipedia's repertoire. As such, I move for deletion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Jargon File is public domain (see http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/online-preface.html). However, this is only a dictionary definition. I am a programmer and can't think of anything more interesting about this topic than is already written in the article. I think it's as good as it's going to get. Sancho 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not encyclopedic. More of a general observation than slang, even. We're not the Jargon File and don't need to duplicate its content except when necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Pavel Vozenilek 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:58, 29 June 2007 (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.