Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (47 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 April 26}}</noinclude>
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''no consensus'''. I do not see anything close to consensus in this discussion. Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified), but there is no consensus whether these sources actually create sufficient notability. The votes are slightly skewed to the keep side due to canvassed users, but certainly there are also several long-time Wikipedia editors who are arguing keep. One can try again in a couple of years and see how the sourcing situation has changed.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 08:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
===[[Nim (programming language)]]===
{{not a vote|1=another user asked you to, like here: http://forum.nim-lang.org/t/1075/1 or here: http://irclogs.nim-lang.org/31-03-2015.html}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod (programming language)}}</ul></div>
Line 10 ⟶ 17:
*:Unfortunately, that article is by Andreas Rumpf, who created the language, making it [[WP:PRIMARY]] and thus unsuitable for establishing notability under [[WP:GNG]]. Sorry. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 05:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
*::That's a very good point. I agree that the [http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/the-rise-and-fall-of-languages-in-2013/240165192 other Dr. Dobbs article] isn't enough for GNG, and I too have been unsuccessful at finding any other sources, so I've switched to "delete". This article can always be reinstated if/when there are reliable and independent sources available. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 06:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
*::: As I've described in greater detail below, here's a reliable, independent, significant (as required by [[WP:GNG]]), published secondary source from April 17, 2014: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 — [[User:Jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:Jboyme#top|talk]]) 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:jboyme|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/jboyme|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*:::: Looks like a four-sentence bulletpoint that came straight out of a press release, to me. '''<span style="background:#FFFF00;color:#6B8E23"> ''Nha Trang'' </span>''' <sup>[[User talk:NukeThePukes|Allons!]]</sup> 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
*:::No, it's bad point from someone on a years-long crusade. That Dr. Dobbs published the article indicates that they recognize the importance of the subject. Anyone they chose to write an article on the language would be an insider; that they chose the best, most qualified person to write the article is to be expected, and certainly is not a strike against notability. [[WP:Notable]] is a guideline, not a policy, and demands the use of common sense, not a rigid and archaic approach. Nim is clearly notable because it is widely mentioned and discussed in the places that innovative programming languages are discussed. -- [[Special:Contributions/98.171.173.90|98.171.173.90]] ([[User talk:98.171.173.90|talk]]) 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Line 19 ⟶ 26:
*:::I don't think harvard.edu counts, no. If it was published by an established computer science professor then perhaps (see [[WP:USERGENERATED]]), but usually we look for things like articles in actual academic journals, or books, or news publications. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 10:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
*: We currently pay developers in our company to use Nim for actual projects which are to be released over the course of the next year as (proprietary) software for financial analysis and consulting. We decided to use Nim for it's unique features (it even invented new forms of meta-programming). Also we found out about Nim because it is often mentioned in comparison to Rust (another fairly new language) and recognized by leading developers at Mozilla. What I write may not (yet) change the status of the article because there is no citable reference for my claim until we finish our product. I wanted to mention it anyway as I think that paying people for using a computer language is strong evidence for its relevance — '''''[[User:OderWat|oderwat]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:OderWat#top|talk]])</sup> 11:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
*: One can also people other than the creators using Nim by questions tagged in Stack Overflow ([http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/nim here] and [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/nimrod here]). Not a lot, many people ask questions on the [http://irclogs.nim-lang.org/ IRC channel]. Also, Nim is featured at [http://learnxinyminutes.com/docs/nim/ learnxinyminutes.com], kinda a secondary source. [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]]) 15:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Caroliano|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
:::We do not accept [[WP:SPS|user-generated]] sources as evidence of notability. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 17:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: Learnxinyminutes is not a self published source. Outside contributions must submit a pull-request where there is some degree of peer review and finally must be accepted by the website/repository maintainers to feature in the page. The stackoverflow and irc channel link are simply further evidence that the language is used "by anyone other than the creators" that Margin1522 requested. [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]]) 20:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Caroliano|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
::''The test for programming languages seems to be whether they are actually being used by anyone other than the creators.'' -- There is only one creator, but there certainly are many more than one user, so by your own criterion the language is notable. -- [[Special:Contributions/98.171.173.90|98.171.173.90]] ([[User talk:98.171.173.90|talk]]) 12:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Line 29 ⟶ 36:
:::I appreciate your week keep. I would like to note that while there is one creator there is a very lively community (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenode freenode] channel #nim [http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/details.php?room=%23nim&net=freenode FreenodeStats]). Many of these community members contribute to Nim and, as a result, become a contributing author of the software. Having high numbers of developers actively joining an open source software project on a daily basis is in itself an indication of notoriety [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:::Example of contributions to NIM by the community [https://vimeo.com/123840727 Video showing contributions over time] [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*'''Keep''' The company where I work, http://www.snapdisco.com, has recently switched to Nim for our internal software development. (We develop software for [[image processing]] and [[computer vision]].) We initially developed our software in [[Python (programming language)|Python]], which is webservice-friendly and has [[NumPy]] and [[SciPy]] for numerical computing, but we switched to Nim for its unique combination of coding expressiveness and runtime performance. Because Nim compiles to C, we can integrate our Nim code into our Python code as Python extension modules. We are not the language creators, but our software is proprietary. How can we prove that we are using Nim? (Disclaimers: 1. This Wikipedia account, from which I'm commenting, was created for the purpose of commenting on this AfD. 2. I have never edited/contributed to the Wikipedia page for Nim, so I have no vested interest there. 3. I have never committed any code to the Nim language, so I am not a "creator". 4. My company ''does'' use the Nim programming language. 5. I am an active member of the Nim user community.) — [[User:Jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:Jboyme#top|talk]]) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:jboyme|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/jboyme|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*: Also, here's another independent, published source: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 In this article from April 17, 2014, Nim(rod) is described as a language "on the rise" by an independent reporter, along with [[Clojure]], [[Julia (programming language)]], [[OCaml]] (whoops, that's hardly a new language...) and [[Racket (programming language)]] (whoops, also not so new). But the section on Nim (slide 9) is clearly significant as required by [[WP:GNG]] ("more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material") and the article is clearly an independent secondary source. — [[User:Jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:Jboyme#top|talk]]) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:jboyme|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/jboyme|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*::I don't believe that qualifies as a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source. {{tq|A '''[[secondary source]]''' provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.}} It doesn't look to me like the author was doing any more than just copy-editing the primary source for space, the same way a news organization might copy edit a press release, also without adding their own interpretation or analysis. I don't see anything here that represents his own ideas. I certainly don't get the impression the author downloaded the compiler and tried it out as he would have to for an actual review. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
*::: I would argue that simply choosing to ''include'' Nim in this article, a stated list of languages "on the rise", is a representation of the author's own ideas: The idea that Nim is on the rise and (as the author suggests on the first slide) "could have meaningful impact on modern programming as it evolves". (The languages in the article are ordered alphabetically, so we can't read anything into Nim's position on slide 9.) I would argue that the facts the author chose to include in the terse description of Nim (such as not needing a VM or runtime) represent the author's interpretation of what is worthy about the language. For example, noting that Nim compiles down to C and thus doesn't need a VM or runtime, seems to me to be a comment on Nim's stated goal "without compromises on runtime efficiency". For about half the languages the author presents (eg, Ceylon, Clojure, Groovy, Hack), the language is described primarily in contrast to another more-widely-known language (often Java). This is also the case for the description of Nim (again, contrasting it with Java's need for the JVM). I agree that the article is not particularly well-written; but I still assert that the article (poorly-written as it is) '''does qualify''' as a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source. Finally, I disagree with the suggestion that it is necessary to download a compiler and try it out, before one can write a review about a language: One can review a language's syntax, stdlib API, or even design goals, for example. It's not necessary for the author to review the operation of the Nim compiler specifically, for the article to be a valid [[WP:SECONDARY]] source about the Nim language. — [[User:Jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:Jboyme#top|talk]]) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Line 51 ⟶ 58:
:http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5564931&cid=47724581
:Common sense indicates that Nim is notable. [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]]) 15:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Caroliano|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
::I looked at all three of those discussion pages and on every one of them, several people explained that we decide whether to keep an article based on whether there are reliable independent secondary sources and that there are no such sources supporting notability of this subject. We do not accept primary, self-published and unreliable sources including things like blogs. We also do not keep an article because there's another article on WP that you think is even worse. If you think it's worse, go ahead and nominate it for AfD. If you're right, we'll delete that one, too. All of this was explained in those very pages you offered so I have no idea why you think they support your !vote to keep. If you would like to have an article on Nim, all it takes is a couple short articles on the subject by people who are independent of the creator of the language offering their thoughts about it. Techie magazines are dying for content. Get them to publish your articles, then come back here and you can have your article here, no problem. Heck, we don't even where it's published as long as it's a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. It could be a hobbyist magazine or even [[TV Guide]] for all we care. But publish somewhere else, first. Convince them this an important subject and then you'll convince us. It's not that hard. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 15:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Line 58 ⟶ 65:
:::I understand the need for solid and not easily abusable guidelines for notability and RS, but IMHO this is a case where common sense must also be weighted. ''I don't think wikipedia will become better by removing Nim's article''. Yes, people in the links I posted explained the reason it was deleted, nonetheless there was many people from outside Nim that expressed the desire to see a Nim article here, and that it looked like just a big burocracy issue (see [[WP:BURO]]), that your post also seems to support. Also on those links, there are many people that stopped contributing to Wikipedia once the work they put editing a page about something they use and think is important was thrown in the trash when the article was deleted. This don't helps Wikipedia.
:::And I never said to keep this article because there are worse ones. I think it should be kept by it's own importance. [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]]) 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Caroliano|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*'''Comment''' Can this article be merged anywhere? If the consensus ends up that Nim is still not notable enough for a stand alone article per Wikipedia rules, I argue that it is still plenty notable enough for being in Wikipedia (see [[WP:NOTEWORTHY]]). Is there some "Lists of new programming languages from 2008" or a comparative table where it fits? If there is not, I think such a page should be created, as it would remove much attrition from deletion requests like this (it would not be a total deletion, more of a move), as well as having the redirect in place will prevent newbies from re-creating the article thinking Wikipedia is missing information (as already happened with Nim, as per one of my links). Less useless energy dispended across language deletions and more useful and organized content in Wikipedia. Seems like a win-win. [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]]) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Caroliano|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*:Yes, merge is always an option at AfD but it's helpful if you can identify where you'd like it merged. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
*::A quick search brought up [[List of programming languages by type#Imperative languages]], but that would be more of a redirect target than a merge target. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
*::: Yeah, I posted that comment exactly because I couldn't find somewhere it could be merged. [[Esoteric programming language|Esoteric programming languages]] do have some less notable languages in the article itself, but there is no similar place for other types of languages. That is why I suggested some type of "programming language nursery" like "List of new programming languages from [year x]" where most languages can get a paragraph or two plus a info box, for example. I think that having a register of the diversity of programming languages is important for Wikipedia, even if individually they are not notable. And as I said, it would reduce the drama on programming language articles deletions, as they can turn into merges. Eventually they can get their own articles as they grow and accumulate references (or they may simply die and leaving their imprint). [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]]) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Caroliano|Caroliano]] ([[User talk:Caroliano|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Caroliano|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*'''Keep''' Please note that Nims inceasing popularity is mirrored by the fact that it is already contained in the Redmonk programming language rankings http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2015/01/14/language-rankings-1-15/ and by the strongly increasing number of commits and contributors as shown by https://www.openhub.net/p/Nimrod . <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/80.134.235.230|80.134.235.230]] ([[User talk:80.134.235.230|talk]]) 23:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:80.134.235.230|80.134.235.230]] ([[User talk:80.134.235.230|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/80.134.235.230|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*'''Delete''' Per nom. {{reply to|Caroliano}} ycombinator, reddit, and slashdot are not reliable sources, so Nim's presence on them is irrelevant. ycombinator is a startup culture, they'll praise nearly anything. 400 repositories on github by 55 people, also irrelevant to the discussion here, is actually pretty low. {{AnonIP|80.134.235.230}} It's not listed in the Redmonk programming language rankings... ―<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> 14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
::I don't see any references to substantiate your objection that 400 repositories ''is actually pretty low''. I would argue that you are absolutely wrong. Notice the top 50 languages [http://githut.info/ here]. Note number 49 on the list which currently has fewer than 400 repositories would currently be replaced by Nim based on more recent activity. It is also clear that you are not a programmer if you believe that ycombinator, reddit and slashdot are not essential locations for professional programmers. While there exists some startup culture, that is by no means the dominant culture. The dominant culture is of discovery and sharing information. Those sites, given their popularity, have become very valuable resources for solving difficult programming problems and sharing ideas and programming theory. In essence, they have become a more live version of the popular secondary sources you are looking for.[[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 02:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
:::{{Reply to|Itsmeront}} Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Sources here need to be credible and reliable. If someone cited a ycombinator/reddit/slashdot post in a publication submitted to a peer-reviewed they would be laughed out of academia. They are not reputable sources. Even StackOverflow and Quora (both of which are far more reliable than the 3 of those) do not meet the requirements of [[WP:RS]]. ―<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> 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 83 ⟶ 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 95 ⟶ 102:
::https://www.openhub.net/p/Nimrod
::https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=language%3ANimrod&type=Repositories&ref=searchresults
::Nim is a powerful programming language. It would be a shame if Wikipedia didn't have an article about it. [[Special:Contributions/46.72.203.44|46.72.203.44]] ([[User talk:46.72.203.44|talk]]) 22:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:46.72.203.44|46.72.203.44]] ([[User talk:46.72.203.44|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/46.72.203.44|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*'''Keep'''. I have no horse in this game, other than being having a long-standing interest in programming languages, major and minor. Nim is definitely in the latter category. When I come across something like a minor programming language, I want to come to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Finding that the page has been deleted feels like bureaucracy and perhaps deletionism gone amok. There is clearly enough of a user community that Nim counts as a real programming language rather than just a toy. The article could definitely stand to be improved, but even now it's a lot better than no article. [[User:Raph Levien|Raph Levien]] ([[User talk:Raph Levien|talk]]) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Line 105 ⟶ 112:
:I don't understand the concept of "Wikipedia's Notability" but removing this article would be a loss for Wikipedia because Nim is a feature-rich programming language with a lovely syntax that people use and Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the language because Wikipedia editors somehow didn't find it notable enough. This whole discussion looks like trolling and it pains me. Even if Nim really isn't that popular it still does deserve a Wikipedia article about it because I'm sure a lot of people would find it very interesting.
:Sorry about my English. [[Special:Contributions/46.72.203.44|46.72.203.44]] ([[User talk:46.72.203.44|talk]]) 08:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:46.72.203.44|46.72.203.44]] ([[User talk:46.72.203.44|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/46.72.203.44|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
::Here's me again. I'm still very upset.
::If you are having a hard time finding information about Nim try to google "nimrod metaprogramming". Nim isn't the most popular language right now but its metaprogramming capabilities are quite "notable".
::That's maybe my opinion but I'm certain that after the language is 1.0, which probably will happen soon, the language will be cited and discussed everywhere and the article will be revived again, which would be somewhat silly because it was removed so many times because reasons.
::Nim is a well designed programming language. There are projects written in it. There's a community around the language. I personally like the language a lot and use it. But somehow Wikipedians think it's not worthy of Wikipedia. I don't understand this at all. It doesn't look unbiased. [[Special:Contributions/93.88.130.208|93.88.130.208]] ([[User talk:93.88.130.208|talk]]) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:93.88.130.208|93.88.130.208]] ([[User talk:93.88.130.208|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/93.88.130.208|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*'''Weak Keep'''. The language itself is probably notable enough. But the current article's sources are ''very'' poor, so imo this is more a question of whether a [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]] article can be written, than an question of notability. Citing random Slashdot posts and reddit posts is about as good as not citing anything, since random Wikipedians could state their opinion just as well as random Slashdotters or Redditors can, but would still not constitute a proper citation. I would support keeping, but paring it down considerably to a stub that can be sourced to at least the good first-party sources (e.g. the manual and the Dr. Dobbs article). --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] ([[User talk:Delirium|talk]]) 11:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' So we have:
Line 121 ⟶ 128:
*'''Weak keep'''. While the article is right next to the edge of being notable the subject is well known enough to a large enough audience that deletion of this article now would inevitable cause the article to be restored at a later date in the near future. And before someone says otherwise: This argument does not violate [[WP:CRYSTAL]] as the subject already has attention, it's just that a reliable source hasn't written about it yet. Despite saying that this is only a weak keep I believe that this AfD is an inappropriate use of most contributors time precisely because of the reason explained, but to each to his own. [[User:Erik.Bjareholt|Erik.Bjareholt]] ([[User talk:Erik.Bjareholt|talk]]) 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. It seems to me that wikipedia editors have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to slashdot. While it is true that anyone can place an article on slasdot that does not mean it will make it to a full article and get ANY attention. You seem to be assuming that the links you are reading about Nim on slashdot are such submissions. They are not! Before the slashdot article appared for the general readers this article had to make it through firehose. More then 500 people voted up this article (this means 500 people + one person for every vote down) [http://slashdot.org/?fhfilter=nim Slash Dot Nim Votes]. Once the article appeard on slashdot proper it received over 520 comments. This is not your regular someone posted something to slashdot so you can just ignore it article. I challenge you to find an article on a programming language in slashdot proper (not firehose) that wikipedia would reject as not notable. I would aruge that if an article about a programming language makes it all the way through slashdot firehose, it SHOULD be notable enough for wikipedia. Especially since it seems obvious that the editors are not programmers and are not qualified to judge notibility in programming, which seems to follow different rules for notablity then other subjects (at least to us lowly professional programmers). [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
::{{Reply to|Itsmeront}} Slashdot does not meet the requirements of [[WP:RS]], neither are user votes. As such, Nim's popularity on there is irrelevant to its notability. This is an encyclopedia, and the fact that a few people are fans of this obscure language is irrelevant to its notability, especially since the majority of keep votes on here came to this thread after being [[WP:CANVAS]]'ed (see links above), with the stated goal of stacking the votes. As for your claim that "it is obvious that the editors are not programmers and are not qualified to judge notibility in programming", Well done. You've made incorrect assumptions about everyone who disagrees with you and included a false premise as well.
::# Most of the people saying delete are actually in computer science and software engineering. We just know that Reddit, SlashDot, GitHub, and every other site that relies on user-submitted content, are '''not''' reliable sources, and do not satisfy [[WP:GNG]] for this article. Popularity != Notability. If this language had any actual notability,
::# One doesn't need to be a programmer to understand and correctly apply Wikipedia policies, though many active editors are indeed programmers. We're not here to discuss the programming language's merits, but its impact and whether there is significant coverage of it by reliable sources independent of people who would benefit from its popularity. ―<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> 18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{Reply to|Padenton}}Please explain why GitHub is '''not''' a reliable source. GitHub is the largest code hoster in the world and it has the largest community. Nim is recognized as a language on GitHub, which by itself is '''very''' notable, and Nim has a community on GitHub. How exactly is it not notable? If I follow your logic then: why even have any articles about any programming languages, all programs are user-generated anyway, let's remove all articles about programming. One does need to be a programmer to understand how notable a language is. Nim's presence on GitHub should at least prove that it's a real programming language and that people use the language. [[Special:Contributions/93.88.130.208|93.88.130.208]] ([[User talk:93.88.130.208|talk]]) 19:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:93.88.130.208|93.88.130.208]] ([[User talk:93.88.130.208|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/93.88.130.208|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
::::::Go read this article: [[WP:RS]], it explains our policy on reliable sources. Other programming language articles are about programming languages that have had an impact. This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not for promoting every piece of software that someone invents (See [[WP:NOTPROMOTION]]) ―<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> 19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{Reply to|Padenton}} Wikipedia policies for establishing the notability of a programming language or such technology are simply insane, and I refuse to abide by such insanity, although it may have merit for other articles. Linking users to policies doesn't change the fact that the policies are stupid. --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 19:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{Reply to|IO Device}} Not sure what to tell you. ―<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> 19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::{{Reply to|Padenton}} Sorry my IP is changed. I should probably register. I just want to make something clear first. I'm a random programmer from Russia and English isn't my first language. I did not contribute anything to Nim. I do not have any agenda. However I invested a month of my life into coding in Nim at my job, which is an animation studio. I was very impressed with Nim and especially its macros and compile time code execution. There aren't that many languages that can do this. Nim's metaprogramming capabilities are extremely noteworthy, and people really do find it fascinating https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nimrod+metaprogramming I personally find the language very interesting and I don't understand why an encyclopedia shouldn't have an article about the language. Nim's compiler itself is actually very notable: it's a large project, it's written in Nim, and there aren't many other languages that can match its features. Removal of this article would make Wikipedia worse and nothing else. [[Special:Contributions/46.72.203.44|46.72.203.44]] ([[User talk:46.72.203.44|talk]]) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:46.72.203.44|46.72.203.44]] ([[User talk:46.72.203.44|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/46.72.203.44|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
::::::::Please note that as [[:File:Wikipede_books.png|''wikipedes'']], we're kind of slow moving. The wannabe elitist nature of our site, and our concomitant efforts to preserve our pedestal in the public eye, together prevent us from diluting our content to what is substantiated by mere forks of [[Fork (software development)|forks]]. As a programmer, surely you understand - some [[pull request]]s must essentially be declined, and so must this article. We are driven by what we call [[WP:POLICY]] - this is enforced mercilessly by the [[WP:POLICE]]. Perhaps the future will bring A New Hope, but until then, the Wiki Empire and its Deletion System, with the capability to destroy an entire article, shall prevail. --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 22:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
*<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 140 ⟶ 147:
::::{{Reply to|IO Device}} It already exists, it's at [[WP:NSOFT]].―<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> 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep'''</s> I would like to continue the argument that Slashdot is a reliable source for programming languages notability. Slashdot is a [[WP:NEWSBLOG]]. It is a publication, like a magazine that has a very large readership. While it allows readers to submit blogs, it provides editorial control, through both it's voting system, and it's comment section. Articles on Slashdot that make it through to a actual article about programming languages should be considered reliable secondary sources.
:In addition, you have also made the argument that [[WP:BLOGS]] are not to be used as reliable secondary sources. Please note: 'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' [[WB:BLOGS]] Goran Krampe is a noted expert in the field of Computer Languages [[http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1482379]] [[http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221321272_Advanced_issue_tracker_in_smalltalk]] [[http://www.artima.com/forums//flat.jsp?forum=155&thread=305311]] [[http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1176692]]. He is one of the original Guides for Alan Kay's Squeak Smalltalk, has worked with some of the best programmers in the workd. Based on your own guidelines his blogs may be considered, and I aruge, SHOULD, be considered reliable. [[http://goran.krampe.se/category/nim/ Goran Krampe's articles on Nim]] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
::::<small>Duplicate "keep" stricken. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 02:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::It means we might consider an [[WP:SPS]] reliable for certain things. For example, we might accept an [[WP:SPS]] as acceptable for establishing certain facts about the subject, e.g., that Nim supports term rewriting macros and that they do whatever they do. It does not mean we accept that because an expert wrote about the subject in his blog that that makes the subject notable. Reliable for establishing facts is not the same as reliable for establishing notability. And the reason is that the essence of notability here on WP is not that anyone ''should'' take note of the subject, it's that ''they did'' and that they did it in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. A blog is never that. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 07:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
::::{{Reply to|Msnicki}} This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the subject of new language development, expert analysis and review are critical to the development of a community, especially in open source projects. The fact that an expert in a field BLOGS about a language is in itself an indication of Notability. Do you not agree that gaining the attention of experts in the field, even if the field is small, is an indication of Notability? It seems to me that you expect books to be written about people writing new programming languages. I can't find one single book, nor can I find books reviewing new programming languages. What I can find is a number of blogs written by experts in the field [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=new%20programming%20languages%202015| links] Notice that a large minority of Blogs reference [http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2015/01/14/language-rankings-1-15/ RedMonk] and that Nim is included in their rankings (something we have already pointed out many times). While I agree that in some cases blogs should not be considered an indication of Notability, the development of New Programming Languages should not be one of them. The fact that there is no NIM book published is only a temporary situation. I'm not sure if you have actually looked at the link [http://nim-lang.org/manual.html | Sample of Nim Documentation]. I understand that Andreas has already been approached to write one by a very reputable publisher. Again my argument is this. In situations where a very small group of experts exist in a given field, having the policy that published articles by secondary sources should exclude blogs raises the bar of notability excessively high. In Programming language development, which this article represents, the community is king. Gaining the attention of the front page of Slashdot, or being mentioned in an experts blog is the pinnacle of notability and is critical to gaining traction. Nim has done that but even more I would like to stress that ANY new programming language that is mentioned by a number of experts in the field on their blogs or makes it to the front page of slashdot should be considered notable. WP policies seem to make allowance for these types of exceptions. I am only arguing that they should be applied liberally to new programming languages [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)<small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
:::::{{Reply to|Itsmeront}} The problem is that you haven't provided any indication that these are experts in the field. The coverage also needs to be more than a mere mentioning of the language (As it is in the redmonk). [[WP:GNG]] defines the requirements quite well and precisely. I'm not sure if books would be enough either, unless its received citations. An O'Reilly book would certainly be more than enough for me, something else, I would need to look closer at the author and the books popularity in academia. What would be useful is papers that have been cited, but I found only 2, by the same author. WP policies do allow for exceptions to policy (You can read more here: [[WP:IAR]]), but the main thing here is consensus, and notability. It is not difficult to create a programming language. Most undergraduate Computer science programs all over the world have a course where you create a programming language. The problem, as you can probably guess, is that a lot of people want to create articles for their work in order to promote it, and read more here: [[WP:WHYN]]. ―<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> 17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::{{Reply to|Padenton}}Please see the the links to expert qualifications above, posted previously in this thread.
Line 157 ⟶ 165:
::::It's now called Nim. Yes, it improves the encyclopaedia which is what we're here for. I appreciate David Eppstein's judgement that it fails the wording and somewhat spirit of notability. The sticking point here is the non-independence of the Dr Dobb's source. This AfD should renew an effort to produce a software notability guideline. In its absence, there's no axiomatic comfort blanket. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. (Comment: This AfD was brought to my attention by Padenton after I undid a deletion-sorting edit of his on a different programming-language AfD, but I would have probably seen it anyway via the Computing deletion-sorting list.) Still has zero attention from programming language researchers: I could find nothing on it in Google scholar. I was on the delete side of the 2013 AfD with the comment "The article differs significantly from the one that was deleted in 2010, but provides no more evidence of notability than that one did, nor can I find any myself." I don't think anything has changed since then; the sources are still all unreliable. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
::{{Reply to|David Eppstein}} Thank you for your comments. I would like to make the point that articles in Google Scholar are not an absolute indication of notarietiy. I have been making the argument that researches of new programming languages do not necessarily write scholarly research papers on new languages, but do however write articles in blogs and have conversations with peers, in comments, in places like slashdot and reddit. A good example is [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_(software) Puppet]]. I was able to find a single article on Google Scholar [[http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7037800&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D7037800 Article]] that is not even really about the software. You may say that proves your point one article but notice that for a programming language this popular and as useful as Puppet (Wikipedia uses it: [[http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/09/19/ever-wondered-how-the-wikimedia-servers-are-configured/ link]] I would argue that finding only one article is an indication that your contention that notability requires articles referenced in Google Scholar is false. I have argued that people interested in, and experts in language development, have shown interest in Nim and the article here should stay. [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 02:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
:::I completely agree that academic sources are not the only way for a programming language to be notable. But I'm not convinced by the non-academic sources I've seen so far, either. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.heard about nimrod here->http://www.nerds2nerds.com/?p=519 (a programming related podcast in Bulgarian and not sure if it can be considered as notable source but anyway...) and caught my interest <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.128.57.87|78.128.57.87]] ([[User talk:78.128.57.87|talk]]) 22:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Delete and apply strong creation protection'''. I am from the Nim community and feel like I have constructive input here, but feel free to delete this if it's not in line with this discussion's standards. We cannot expect Wikipedia to bend its content standards for this article, and from the discussion on this page that standard seems to be that the article needs to cite academic sources and people are having a hard time finding academic sources to cite here. If that is the standard then I'll argue that this page will never be able to meet that standard, because due to Nim's properties it is unlikely to ever be used seriously in an academic environment. In light of that I recommend '''Delete and apply strong creation protection''' as there is no use in recreating this page in the future since the content standards can never be met. [[User:Philip.wernersbach|Philip.wernersbach]] ([[User talk:Philip.wernersbach|talk]]) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
*:The sources don't need to be academic - they just need to pass Wikipedia's [[WP:RS|reliable sources guideline]]. For example, news articles on tech news sites would do nicely, as would books with titles like "Nim for Dummies". (It doesn't need to be the whole book, either - a page or two would be enough.) — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 04:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
*::Hmm... If the sources don't need to be academic then the page may be able to meet Wikipedia's standards at some point in the future. I'm keeping with my vote for now though. Nim currently has a lot of content published about it, but it's all self-published. For instance, Andrea Ferretti wrote a neutral Nim vs Rust comparison at https://andreaferretti.github.io/on-rust-and-nim/, but it's self-published and thus unusable as a source. Andreas Rumpf gave a presentation at StrangeLoop about Nim and why its meta programming capabilities are important (available at http://www.infoq.com/presentations/nimrod), which means that someone at StrangeLoop looked over his presentation and decided it was notable enough for a talk. However, Andreas Rumpf is the creator of Nim so this source cannot be used as well because it violates viewpoint neutrality. [[User:Philip.wernersbach|Philip.wernersbach]] ([[User talk:Philip.wernersbach|talk]]) 19:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'd like to bring attention to a somewhat urgent issue. The current page was invalidly copy-paste restored from the draft article [[Draft:Nim (programming language)]]. I've elaborated and put more details on the article talk page: [[Talk:Nim_(programming_language)#Invalid_restore_from_draft]]. [[User:Erik.Bjareholt|Erik.Bjareholt]] ([[User talk:Erik.Bjareholt|talk]]) 11:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
*:Apparently not '''too''' bad if the closing admin considers history merges as challenge: Before 2015-02-17 the relevant history is in the old article (=draft), then that was copied wholesale to the new page as shown in your diff replacing the new stub, and the relevant editing continued on the new page. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|talk]]) 23:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
*::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====
*Keep. Per Margin1522's comment [[User:Shabidoo|Shabidoo]] | [[User talk:Shabidoo|Talk]] 18:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I did a non admin closure for this AfD to try to lightened the load for admins stating:
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|<span style="color:DarkSlateGray;">'''Valoem'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Valoem|'''<span style="color:blue;">talk</span>''']]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Valoem|'''<span style="color:Green;">contrib</span>''']]</sup> 02:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''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)
::Given the lack of consensus based on strong policy for delete vs IAR / borderline GNG, userify may be another option (to the seemingly obvious no-consensus). <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 11:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
:::No, userify is not and never was an option for this article. That would for all intents and purposes be akin to deletion. --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
:::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|<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype; color:#000000;">kikichugirl</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kikichugirl|<span style="color:#8A37F0;">oh hello!</span>]]</sup></span> 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
::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|<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype; color:#000000;">kikichugirl</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kikichugirl|<span style="color:#8A37F0;">oh hello!</span>]]</sup></span> 06:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::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)
:::::::No spin here. You're welcome to read it yourself. As for an automated Wikipedia replacement, speaking as an AI student, I find that highly doubtful. ―<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> 05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Hut 8.5. The sources are trivial, or not independent, or [[WP:RUNOFTHEMILL|run-of-the-mill]] fluff. [[User:Reyk|<span style="color:maroon;">'''Reyk'''</span>]] [[User talk:Reyk|'''<sub style="color:blue;">YO!</sub>''']] 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Very simply this language has come to my attention. I am not a follower of blogs, tweet, ... social media etc. I do not expect to see an article in the New York Times or Washington Post regarding this language in the next 10 years. I come to wikipedia to learn about things. It would be a shame if I could not find out about this here. I think it should remain. I do not post often which in some opinions diminishes the weight of my words, but please consider I have decided to expend some of my precious time for this. [[User:Brucekg|brucekg]] ([[User talk:Brucekg|talk]]) 17:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)brucekg
*'''Delete'''. Whilst well-referenced at first glance, the citations are primarily to user-generated content such as Reddit, Nim's own website, and other unreliable sources. I am also disappointed at the apparent meat-puppetry/vote-stacking on this debate. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep'''</s> I would argue that if OSCON has found Nim notable so should wikipedia. [http://www.oscon.com/open-source-2015/public/schedule/detail/42497 OSCON 2015]. Andreas has been invited to speak at a very popular convention. We have continually showed the editors that the references are expert reviews of a notable programming language [[WB:BLOGS]] which can be considered since the authors are experts. We have shown that a news blog with editorial control has featured Nim [[WP:NEWSBLOG]], we have shown that Nim is extremely popular by citing github stats and inclusion on [http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2015/01/14/language-rankings-1-15/ RedMonk]. You have waved your hands and turned up your nose or called it fluff but you have not answered why these editoritial policies should not be applied. They clearly show that Nim is notable. [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 07:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::Only one !vote per person, please. You've already !voted. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 09:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::His 3rd vote in fact. ―<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> 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep''', if only because of the Dr. Dobbs source. I know it's written by the language creator, but I still feel it's good enough as it has been ''published'' by an independent publication who obviously decided it was important or notable. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 01:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||