Talk:BlooP and FlooP
 | 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
[edit]Sufficient notability
[edit]Floop 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
[edit]I 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!