Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
d |
+ |
||
Line 153:
::{{Reply to|Padenton}} Yes, I said it's an essay, and NSOFT is not a notability guideline as implied above, but as I said, also an essay. [[WP:IAR]] is the policy "that all editors should normally follow", [[WP:N]] is the guideline "editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". I believe pertinent here, others may agree or not. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
:::{{Reply to|Widefox}}Okay, fair enough. Do you have any reasons why Nimrod should be excepted from the notability guideline? ―<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> 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. (Comment: This AfD was brought to my attention by Padenton after I undid a deletion-sorting edit of his on a different programming-language AfD, but I would have probably seen it anyway via the Computing deletion-sorting list.) Still has zero attention from programming language researchers: I could find nothing on it in Google scholar. I was on the delete side of the 2013 AfD with the comment "The article differs significantly from the one that was deleted in 2010, but provides no more evidence of notability than that one did, nor can I find any myself." I don't think anything has changed since then; the sources are still all unreliable. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 00:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
| |||