Content deleted Content added
Line 26:
::Don't get me wrong: the technology behind Factor and its VM are impressive technological achievements. Still, I found it hard to find articles on Factor that were not written by either [[Slava Pestov]], [http://phildawes.net/blog/ Phil Dawes], or [http://useless-factor.blogspot.com/ Daniel Ehrenberg], who in my eyes are too close to Factor to be considered secondary sources.
::Anyway, as I wrote above I am now convinced that Factor is notable. I won't revert if anybody removes the notability tag from the article again. — [[User:Tobias Bergemann|Tobias Bergemann]] ([[User talk:Tobias Bergemann|talk]]) 07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
::: 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.
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)
| |||