Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
comment - passes 99BOTTLES |
|||
Line 148:
:::::{{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,
*'''Comment''' We have a couple of essays and a failed guideline that help (somewhat): [[WP:NSOFT]] and [[WP:99BOTTLES]], [[Wikipedia:Software notability]] . This passes 99BOTTLES [http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-nimrod-2245.html] <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 09:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
| |||