 | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sufficient notability to remove the flag
editSufficient notability
editFloop and Bloop are notable enough for me. In other words: I referenced this article, coming from Recursion. I'm going to remove the tag. It's still a stub, perhaps, but the links help etc etc. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ooops, it looks like a similar action on my part got delayed. Derek farn (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
GlooP
editI think this page should probably talk about GlooP, given that GlooP is practically the entire reason these two languages were in the book, AFAICT.
Even though GlooP isn't very well-defined, some stuff could still be discussed about it.
Blitzer99 (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Agreed!