Content deleted Content added
→Notability: Reply |
Move current discussion to bottom |
||
Line 28:
::: Re: Re: Tobias, unfortunately you are not notable to most of us Wikipedia readers, probably your entries should be deleted from here. On the other hand and to change the tone, Factor is one of the most advanced programming languages today, along with Clojure and REBOL. Since I already know and like the language and do not want to find it on the web again, just delete away the entry! How the bloody hell can there be a guideline which says that a scientific or engineering feat as advanced as Factor should be simply omitted? And Jimmy Wales wanted my money for that the other day with those handsome portraits. My buttocks. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.131.191.32|82.131.191.32]] ([[User talk:82.131.191.32|talk]]) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
It appears that the Factor article has been declared non-notable again. I don't understand why this is. There have not been more secondary sources on Factor, but there are now peer-reviewed academic publications on Factor in addition to the secondary mentions that have already existed. How has Factor become less notable in this time? <small>[[User:LittleDan|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan|talk]]</sup> 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)▼
:As I wrote in {{diff|Factor_(programming_language)|406907219|prev|this edit summary}}, the Diggins source seems to be reliable and have substantial coverage, but it's barely used. Relies on primary sources elsewhere, and lots of unsourced material. Maybe after the referencing problems are fixed notability will be obvious. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)▼
==Interpreted language?==
Line 48 ⟶ 45:
To the best of my knowledge Ideone is the only online compiler available for the Factor programming language. Online compilers might be of programmers interest due to several reasons (mobile devices usage, forum integration, programmers testing, programmers forum discussions) it does not [http://www.google.pl/search?client=opera&rls=pl&q=factor+online+compiler&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 google well]. Ideone does not require registration. Some third party site statistics: [http://www.xmarks.com/site/www.ideone.com/ xmarks], [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ideone.com alexa], [[User:Kuszi|kuszi]] ([[User talk:Kuszi|talk]]) 13:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC).
== Notability 2 ==
▲It appears that the Factor article has been declared non-notable again. I don't understand why this is. There have not been more secondary sources on Factor, but there are now peer-reviewed academic publications on Factor in addition to the secondary mentions that have already existed. How has Factor become less notable in this time? <small>[[User:LittleDan|LittleDan]]</small><sup>[[User talk:LittleDan|talk]]</sup> 19:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
▲:As I wrote in {{diff|Factor_(programming_language)|406907219|prev|this edit summary}}, the Diggins source seems to be reliable and have substantial coverage, but it's barely used. Relies on primary sources elsewhere, and lots of unsourced material. Maybe after the referencing problems are fixed notability will be obvious. --[[User:Pnm|Pnm]] ([[User talk:Pnm|talk]]) 01:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
| |||