Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
Added my argument for deletion plus strong creation protection. |
||
Line 160:
:::I completely agree that academic sources are not the only way for a programming language to be notable. But I'm not convinced by the non-academic sources I've seen so far, either. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''.heard about nimrod here->http://www.nerds2nerds.com/?p=519 (a programming related podcast in Bulgarian and not sure if it can be considered as notable source but anyway...) and caught my interest <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.128.57.87|78.128.57.87]] ([[User talk:78.128.57.87|talk]]) 22:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Delete and apply strong creation protection'''. I am from the Nim community and feel like I have constructive input here, but feel free to delete this if it's not in line with this discussion's standards. We cannot expect Wikipedia to bend its content standards for this article, and from the discussion on this page that standard seems to be that the article needs to cite academic sources and people are having a hard time finding academic sources to cite here. If that is the standard then I'll argue that this page will never be able to meet that standard, because due to Nim's properties it is unlikely to ever be used seriously in an academic environment. In light of that I recommend '''Delete and apply strong creation protection''' as there is no use in recreating this page in the future since the content standards can never be met. [[User:Philip.wernersbach|Philip.wernersbach]] ([[User talk:Philip.wernersbach|talk]]) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
| |||