Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:38, 3 April 2015

Revision as of 03:30, 3 April 2015

Line 135:

<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;">&mdash; [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a cup</font>]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 02:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist -->[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|Nim (programming language)]]</div>

*'''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.&nbsp;Stradivarius</span>]]''''' ^{[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪&nbsp;talk&nbsp;♪]]} 03:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)