Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 146:
::::{{Reply to|Msnicki}} This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the subject of new language development, expert analysis and review are critical to the development of a community, especially in open source projects. The fact that an expert in a field BLOGS about a language is in itself an indication of Notability. Do you not agree that gaining the attention of experts in the field, even if the field is small, is an indication of Notability? It seems to me that you expect books to be written about people writing new programming languages. I can't find one single book, nor can I find books reviewing new programming languages. What I can find is a number of blogs written by experts in the field [https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=new%20programming%20languages%202015| links] Notice that a large minority of Blogs reference [http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2015/01/14/language-rankings-1-15/ RedMonk] and that Nim is included in their rankings (something we have already pointed out many times). While I agree that in some cases blogs should not be considered an indication of Notability, the development of New Programming Languages should not be one of them. The fact that there is no NIM book published is only a temporary situation. I'm not sure if you have actually looked at the link [http://nim-lang.org/manual.html | Sample of Nim Documentation]. I understand that Andreas has already been approached to write one by a very reputable publisher. Again my argument is this. In situations where a very small group of experts exist in a given field, having the policy that published articles by secondary sources should exclude blogs raises the bar of notability excessively high. In Programming language development, which this article represents, the community is king. Gaining the attention of the front page of Slashdot, or being mentioned in an experts blog is the pinnacle of notability and is critical to gaining traction. Nim has done that but even more I would like to stress that ANY new programming language that is mentioned by a number of experts in the field on their blogs or makes it to the front page of slashdot should be considered notable. WP policies seem to make allowance for these types of exceptions. I am only arguing that they should be applied liberally to new programming languages [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{Reply to|Itsmeront}} The problem is that you haven't provided any indication that these are experts in the field. The coverage also needs to be more than a mere mentioning of the language (As it is in the redmonk). [[WP:GNG]] defines the requirements quite well and precisely. I'm not sure if books would be enough either, unless its received citations. An O'Reilly book would certainly be more than enough for me, something else, I would need to look closer at the author and the books popularity in academia. What would be useful is papers that have been cited, but I found only 2, by the same author. WP policies do allow for exceptions to policy (You can read more here: [[WP:IAR]]), but the main thing here is consensus, and notability. It is not difficult to create a programming language. Most undergraduate Computer science programs all over the world have a course where you create a programming language. The problem, as you can probably guess, is that a lot of people want to create articles for their work in order to promote it, and read more here: [[WP:WHYN]]. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 17:10, 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)
| |||