Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 90:
:::That argument is [[Wikipedia:Other stuff exists]]. Just because those haven't been deleted, doesn't make this article subject notable. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Northamerica1000|N<
*'''Keep'''. As a programmer I find this language to uniquely possess a diverse set of useful features which for me make the language notable. The features are described in the first paragraph of its article. --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 03:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Line 140:
*<ins>'''Keep'''</ins><del>Comment</del>, that was a now existing [[Special:Diff/648590837|requested]] article. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|talk]]) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC) <small>(updated to '''keep''' based on {{tlx|openhub|nimrod|nimrod}}. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|talk]]) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC))</small>
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF4F00;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
*'''Keep''' There seems to be sufficient evidence that it's notable. I;'m not at allan expert here, but it meets the ordinary requirements. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
*:The problem is that the only actual independent, reliable sources we have about the subject are a mention [http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/the-rise-and-fall-of-languages-in-2013/240165192 in Dr. Dobb's] and a paragraph in [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 InfoWorld]. Apart from the [http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/nimrod-a-new-systems-programming-languag/240165321 other Dr. Dobb's article], which was written by the language creator and so does not count as independent, the only other arguments I have seen here are [[WP:ITSUSEFUL]], [[WP:ITSNOTABLE]], [[WP:ITEXISTS]], [[WP:BIG]], and of course [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. It's pretty clear that this topic doesn't pass [[WP:GNG]] as written - to keep it we would essentially have to create a new notability guideline for programming languages based on how many people use them on GitHub. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 03:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 175:
*::There is a slight overlap between the copy-and-paste move, so a history merge wouldn't be appropriate (that would leave Gregh3285's earliest revisions to the current article with nowhere to go). See [[WP:PV]] for the general principle. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 02:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF4F00;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Nakon|<
I saw Nim for the first time on the Rosetta Code site tonight. I was impressed by its conciseness, so I decided to so see what, if anything, Wikipedia had to say on the subject. I was please to find a very quick overview, an indication of possible spheres of utility and a direction to further sites. I am informed by the notices that the article relies overly on primary sources that the article in not perfect and that this computer language currently has minority interest. Well, yes. Wikipedia is a dynamic site and will always contain some articles of that sort by its very nature. However I am utterly bewildered why anyone should wish to remove the article because it does not fulfil perhaps overly stringent guidelines for citations. Are you sure you're actually trying to inform people are are you just trying to stand in judgment over what constitutes a notable citation. It's the strength of Wikipedia that an article on Nim can appear, albeit imperfectly. Nim does not and will quite probably not appear in any edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. It's the USP of Wikipedia that it appears here. [[Special:Contributions/188.29.80.41|188.29.80.41]] ([[User talk:188.29.80.41|talk]]) 02:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC) (I'm a fairly regular user of Wikipedia who does not wish to get embroiled in debates such as these).
====arbitrary break====
Line 184:
The result was '''no consensus'''. Due to the controversial nature of the debate I have included a note. The arguments put for by dom96, Delirium, Erik.Bjareholt, Itsmeront suggest that the subject passes GNG based on sources such as but not limited to, [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2685357/javascript/experimental-javascript-compiler-higgs.html Infoworld], [http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/nimrod-a-new-systems-programming-languag/240165321 Dr. Dobbs], and others. Those favoring deletion believe these sources are not sufficient and the article require additional sourcing. There appears to be a lack of consensus. I am not an admin, so reverting if contested is not an issue.
It had been opened for nearly a month this no comment for a week. {{re|Padenton}} has contested this close so admin intervention is required. [[User:Valoem|<
*'''Comment''' I have been a bit lazy regarding this, given that I am the one who posted the not a vote tag. I have now tagged those I suspect are most likely to be the canvassed users. I tagged users based on their activity aside from Nim (programming language). The links to where they were canvassed are in the header above. There were additional locations in the IRC logs where it was done as well, but I didn't find any useful information there as to who found out from there. I do not envy the admin that closes this and has to drudge through the marshes on this. Note that while I have tagged 6/7, there '''are''' other keep and weak keep arguments, including some that were indeed based on policy. Some are by experienced editors, some are by inexperienced editors which I did not feel comfortable assuming as canvassed. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 03:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 191:
:::If this article isn't worthy of being in the main namespace, then just delete it. Half-measures like this aren't good for anyone. [[User:Philip.wernersbach|Philip.wernersbach]] ([[User talk:Philip.wernersbach|talk]]) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' despite strenuous efforts the sources to support [[WP:GNG|notability]] simply aren't there. The article cites an array of unreliable and obviously primary sources (GitHub, slashdot, reddit, blogs, etc). The only ones which look more respectable are [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/nimrod] and [http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/nimrod-a-new-systems-programming-languag/240165321] and since both were written by the creator of the language they can't be considered completely independent of the subject. I don't think the sources presented here are much more impressive. [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2685357/javascript/experimental-javascript-compiler-higgs.html] and [http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/the-rise-and-fall-of-languages-in-2013/240165192] are obviously trivial mentions. [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9] is a bit better but we can't base notability on what amounts to one slide in a presentation.<br />We also have various other arguments, but none is consistent with our notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether people think that this programming language is interesting, whether it is used by people, or whether it is recognised by someone as a language unless it has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Someone argued above that there is some kind of systematic bias against availability of reliable sources on this subject. I think the exact opposite is true: Wikipedians tend to be interested in technology and the open-source movement, and tend to prefer sources which are available for free on the internet. An open-source programming language is exactly the link of area where I would expect a particularly exhaustive search of the available sources. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I'm not really convinced by the SPA keep votes who were canvassed. I think it really fails GNG and it cites a lot of sources that aren't really reliable anyway. The deleters above have made a much more convincing argument. <span style="text-shadow:#A2E1FC 2px 2px 9px;">— [[User:Kikichugirl|<
::The above comment is a result of canvassing in #wikipedia-en, and must be discounted for the same reasons noted in the comment. Or are we saying the canvassing has been unbiased? --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
:::When you charge canvassing, you need to provide a link to the diff, please. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
::::What happened was someone came into IRC discussing this AFD, but in fact, they were more for supporting keeping of this article. Indeed, I was notified, which is permitted, but not canvassed, because that implies an inclination to make editors vote a certain way. No one asked me to comment in favor of delete on this AFD. I simply saw it being discussed and decided to voice my 2cents. I did not participate in the IRC discussion, I just saw it as I was going about my day. <span style="text-shadow:#A2E1FC 2px 2px 9px;">— [[User:Kikichugirl|<
:::::Indeed, canvassing is often appropriate. In fact, any post on a noticeboard fits the definition of 'canvassing.' The reason the posting on the nim irc is inappropriate [[WP:CANVASSING|canvassing]] is that it was both off-wiki (see 'stealth canvassing') and a biased audience (see 'vote stacking'). We can argue whether or not the posting of it on the official wikipedia IRC is inappropriate stealth canvassing, but the nim IRC is certainly more of a violator on this front than the official wikipedia IRC due to its lack of transparency. I do concede that the message in the nim IRC is not a biased message (not 'campaigning') as the forum post originally was, though there were other postings to that IRC in the logs, but as stated, it has other issues transparency-wise and audience-wise. However, I did not see the message in #wikipedia-en. If it was in some way arguing for one view or another, that we can talk about. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::That's a nice attempt at spinning things to suit you. But make no mistake, your post is one of a selfish hypocrite, and this whole page is nothing short of an embarrassment. The day of Wikipedia are limited; it won't be long before it is surpassed by an automatedly-written alternative. Just you wait. --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
| |||