Deletion of Kvikkalkul (2nd nomination)

Comment: Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by .  Googling turns up nothing useful.  Truly nothing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is an early esoteric language. It is documented in reliable sources like http://foldoc.org/Kvikkalkul FOLDOC and http://www.catb.org/retro/ The Retrocomputing Museum. Based on a Usenet post in 1994, it has become a minor part of computing folklore, like Intercal. These RS are enough to establish verifiability and some notability, but I am not sure there is enough depth to declare notability according to . The stub itself needs refs, but the prose is fine and seems accurate relative to my knowledge. I am on the fence in terms of a recommendation. If there was a good place to selectively merge, maybe Esoteric programming language#Examples, I think that would be the best option
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)