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

Revision as of 05:05, 3 April 2015

Revision as of 06:40, 3 April 2015

Line 136:

*'''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)

:::'''Comment''' – I think it's important here to remember the spirit of the policies as well as the letter. We have notability guidelines for two reasons. One is that a notable topic is likely to have reliable sources, which is how we try to ensure that articles are reliable and verifiable. But the goal is the information. No matter how reliable the source, it's still a judgment call as to whether any particular piece of information is reliable or not. So the question is whether the information in this article is reliable. As of now, I think it's OK to say that this is a pretty conservative article with content that is easily verifiable from a variety of sources. So that's one. The second reason is to prevent the encyclopedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate information. We don't want people here promoting their latest app just because they want the world to know about it. This again is kind of a judgment call, but overall just being invited to contribute to Dr. Dobbs is an endorsement. It was included in the RedMonk chart, which (yes) is based on GitHub and Stack Overflow activity, but more activity is better than less. And we have well informed people arriving here at AfD to tell us directly why this language is significant. I've voted to delete most of the languages that come up here, and I would do the same for most of those that have been mentioned as OTHERSTUFF. But to come back to the basic question – would including this language be indiscriminate? – I think the answer is no. There are enough criteria that this one passes and others don't to say that it's notable enough. Barely, but notable enough that it's far from an obvious delete. –&nbsp;[[User:Margin1522|Margin1522]] ([[User talk:Margin1522|talk]]) 06:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' 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">—&nbsp;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-->