Plan A doesn't work. It is actually easier to delete things from pages than deleting pages themselves. If you edit war over it you will lose.
Plan B does not work. Wikipedia guidelines do not consider self-published sources as 'reliable' and things published by Lulu are considered self-published. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source either. It is also not going to disappear in a puff of logic like God in hhgttg, no matter how witty you think it is.
Plan C has not worked in the years of people deleting things that appeal to far broader audiences than esoteric programming languages. They are still around. How well do you think this will work?
Plan D is something many people have done. In a way, Wikia is a giant example of it. In other cases they go to wikinfo or create their own wiki.
This post is exactly like 100s of others that someone writes whenever Wikipedia deletes (or even tries to delete) something that they care about. The ground is well-tread and it brings nothing new or interesting to the table. The internet does not need another blog post where someone spends an hour in isolation writing about it.
On an irrelevant note, mediawiki does support subpages (the slashes), but articles cannot have them as article titles may contain slashes. This has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's notation of notability and the reasons people try to get rid of non-notable content.
Plan A is a DOS attack. It's not about getting the information there, it's about putting so much there repeatedly that they have to admit that those topics need their own page.
Plan B wouldn't be "self-published". It would be published by me as a record of the languages that came out that year. Since no language I have is in the book, it's not self-published. If what you're really saying is Wikipedia doesn't recognize Lulu.com, then they're gigantic hypocrites. My book, "Learn Python The Hard Way" is published there, and has an ISBN and Lulu is my publisher. It's just as legit as my books published by Addison/Wesley, especially given their size.
You say Plan C doesn't work, but then here you are debating the topic, and Wikipedia's primary supporters are probably all over this. As many other people say, it's all filled with white nerdy males. If Wikipedia goes around deleting the things they like in order to "de-nerdify" the content, then eventually people will stop donating and go after them. I plan on doing it, and maybe some others.
Plan D is mostly a joke, but it might be good to create a record of the "great nerd purge" that seems to be hitting Wikipedia lately.
I also find it sad that you say people write things like this when Wikipedia deletes content they care about, and yet nothing is done. In fact, you sound powerful and proud of this fact, like it gives you a sense of pride, which is really really scary.
Plan A only bothers whomever tries to maintain [[List of esoteric programming languages]] or wherever you pick as a battleground. I know it sounds to you like you can really "stick it to the man" and they will swoon over your brillant tactics and relent, but you will only bother people that actually care about esolangs in the first place and Monsanto certainly isn't going to be around. The best you can hope for is some people get blocked and pages protected.
Wikipedia's policies would consider it self-published. It does not matter that you would be writing about languages that you are not affiliated with. Again, you are not going to change Wikipedia's policies by pointing out that Wikipedia itself is self-published in their eyes.
I think you are vastly overestimating the number of people that have even heard, much less care about these esoteric languages.
I do not know why you ascribe these emotions to me, but they are not in the least accurate. I do not think my personal opinion on this set of articles is at all significant. I do not care about them, either way.
Frankly, what disturbs me is how you have very strong opinions about how Wikipedia does or should work with an incredibly superficial actual understanding. For example, why do you argue over how Wikipedia sees Lulu? Have you even read Wikipedia's policy on Reliable Sources or Verifiability? It is not as if Lulu itself or other things like it are new. It has been debated a number of times and at length. You have no knowledge of the issue and provide no insight.
Well so far you've just thrown out proclamations without any references backing what you say. I mean, you're some random dude on a forum who's basically repeated what I've said and went "WRONG!". How insightful.
Well, it seems like you haven't had much exposure to Wikipedia's user-contributed 'guidelines', for which you should be thankful... Wikipedia has lots of rules to prevent their other rules from being refuted, giving leverage to insiders when discussing decisions. Case in point:
I can see how the spirit of them was to lubricate discussion and decision making, but when you have such a complex etiquette which can be used to silence newcomers upon breach, you have just a recipe for abuse.
I'm sorry that you are incapable of taking 5 minutes to find read the specific Wikipedia policy pages that mentioned by name. Just because you know nothing about subjects and like to bullshit about them on the internet does not mean that everyone else does the same. Since you mostly seem to be interested in hearing yourself speak I will not engage you further.
I'm sorry that you're incapable of taking the 5 seconds to realize that the overabundance of specific Wikipedia policy pages are the reason why people have given up trying to fix it from within and are content to lob stones from outside without digging into the rules.
Just because you know so goddamn much about policies and the like, doesn't mean anybody else cares.
Since you mostly seem to be interested in seeing yourself further existing bureaucracy and not IAR to create the best a resource for wikipeida users, I will engage you in a futile attempt to point out the reason that people are not doing what you ask.
My actual thoughts on the issues related to inclusion and deletion are not what I was trying to address. I contributed to Wikipedia for a time and saw and was part of deletion sprees on both of the sides. Something like this happens every three months I would guess. Mostly, my thoughts on it at the moment are 'not this shit /again/'.
Plan B does not work. Wikipedia guidelines do not consider self-published sources as 'reliable' and things published by Lulu are considered self-published. Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source either. It is also not going to disappear in a puff of logic like God in hhgttg, no matter how witty you think it is.
Plan C has not worked in the years of people deleting things that appeal to far broader audiences than esoteric programming languages. They are still around. How well do you think this will work?
Plan D is something many people have done. In a way, Wikia is a giant example of it. In other cases they go to wikinfo or create their own wiki.
This post is exactly like 100s of others that someone writes whenever Wikipedia deletes (or even tries to delete) something that they care about. The ground is well-tread and it brings nothing new or interesting to the table. The internet does not need another blog post where someone spends an hour in isolation writing about it.
On an irrelevant note, mediawiki does support subpages (the slashes), but articles cannot have them as article titles may contain slashes. This has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's notation of notability and the reasons people try to get rid of non-notable content.