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

Revision as of 19:14, 21 April 2015

Revision as of 19:47, 21 April 2015

Line 182:

:::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)