Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
r |
no axiomatic comfort blanket |
||
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)
::::It's now called Nim. Yes, it improves the encyclopaedia which is what we're here for. I appreciate David Eppstein's judgement that it fails the wording and somewhat spirit of notability. The sticking point here is the non-independence of the Dr Dobb's source. This AfD should renew an effort to produce a software notability guideline. In its absence, there's no axiomatic comfort blanket. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Widefox|Widefox]]</span>; [[User talk:Widefox|talk]]</span> 17:17, 5 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)
::{{Reply to|David Eppstein}} Thank you for your comments. I would like to make the point that articles in Google Scholar are not an absolute indication of notarietiy. I have been making the argument that researches of new programming languages do not necessarily write scholarly research papers on new languages, but do however write articles in blogs and have conversations with peers, in comments, in places like slashdot and reddit. A good example is [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puppet_(software) Puppet]]. I was able to find a single article on Google Scholar [[http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7037800&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D7037800 Article]] that is not even really about the software. You may say that proves your point one article but notice that for a programming language this popular and as useful as Puppet (Wikipedia uses it: [[http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/09/19/ever-wondered-how-the-wikimedia-servers-are-configured/ link]] I would argue that finding only one article is an indication that your contention that notability requires articles referenced in Google Scholar is false. I have argued that people interested in, and experts in language development, have shown interest in Nim and the article here should stay. [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 02:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
| |||