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

Revision as of 15:54, 3 April 2015

Revision as of 16:07, 3 April 2015

Line 141:

: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-->

:::It means we might consider an [[WP:SPS]] reliable for certain things. For example, we might accept an [[WP:SPS]] as acceptable tofor 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)

*'''Weak Keep''' borderline GNG, so a case of WASTOOSOON, falling back on IAR. (came here independently) <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 15:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)