Once again we are nominated for a deletion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_%28programming_language%29
Edit: Debate moved to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nim_%28programming_language%29
- "Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG."
- Also, it's been deleted twice before, so I feel I should delete it again now.
Perhaps add the following links with text something like this:
- "Nim is frequently compared to Rust": http://arthurtw.github.io/2015/01/12/quick-comparison-nim-vs-rust.html
- "Nim has a wide range of examples on Rosette Code": http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Category:Nim
Mentioning the frequent comparisons to Rust (which I assume is not under constant threat of having its Wikipedia page deleted) might clarify to the deleter that the two languages are peers.
The deleter also says "all of the sources currently offered are WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNRELIABLE blogs or otherwise unsuitable".
I would try to pin the deleter down on what exactly is "otherwise unsuitable". That sounds like a weasel-word for nonspecific justifications that have been retrofitted to justify the deletion of the article, after a decision was already made to delete.
Why was the wikipedia article created again if the reason for deletion and sources quality continues unchanged?
Perhaps if we all argue against it we can overthrow them?
They will respond to suitable sources. I see no point in empty arguments. Arguments to change wikipedia rules to benefit us won't help either. And it was already tried in the proper place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software
Perhaps add the following links with text something like this:
Those two links fall into: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources
What a programming language can do to apear in Wikipedia is to have a peer reviewed academic publication, or some recognized news outlet with editorial corpus to publish about it.
Can references to articles like the following, be added ?
(Does permission need to be sought first?)
http://www.davideaversa.it/2015/01/the-most-promising-languages-of-2015-part-2/
http://picheta.me/articles/2013/10/about-nimrods-features.html
https://medium.com/@joebland/i-m-learning-nim-7960174f6e62
http://rusthon-lang.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/nim-and-rusthon.html
http://www.schipplock.software/2015/02/static-linking-with-nim.html
https://andreaferretti.github.io/on-rust-and-nim/
http://arthurtw.github.io/2015/01/12/quick-comparison-nim-vs-rust
http://www.richardbucker.com/2015/02/the-perfect-programming-language.html
http://steved-imaginaryreal.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/nimrod-return-of-pascal.html
http://ckkashyap.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/nim-is-best-programming-language.html
https://gradha.github.io/articles/2015/02/goodbye-nim-and-good-luck.html
Given these 2 rules:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
Wikipedia is just as arbitrary as we all know it is and there is little we can do. But it surely would be nice if they stopped pretending they act objectively.
To my knowledge Nim invented AST based overloading, TR macros with side-effect and alias analysis constraints and perhaps a couple of other minor things. So if you want Wikipedia to know about AST based overloading you edit some article about overloading (or write a new one) and then reference the non-existing entry to Nim? Makes no sense.
One point in the discussion was "The test for programming languages seems to be whether they are actually being used by anyone other than the creators."
Could @Araq's new employer not chime in and say "Our company is using Nim for our product."?
Article is here to stay, it seems (:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nim_(programming_language)
Now, let's make awesome things with Nim, so this won't come up again.
So, what we need to make Nim notable from Wikipedia's point of view is to get people not associated with Nim to contribute articles to journals or magazines ... silly as that may seem in today's world.
jibal the biggest issue is that those policies are applied arbitrarily so they apply to some articles and not others. Which makes no sense unless you are an admin who likes deleting things. But especially in context when random types of rare mushrooms or any viral video say featuring eating feces or a youtuber who only posts videos of her cat can have an article.
And people will write articles about technologies that have Wikipedia articles and won't if they don't. Or they will write articles about funded technologies. So literally anyone with a rich uncle backing his company can get his technology mentioned in a few big publications just because it was funded.
So if Wikipedia is mainly pay-for-play or a popularity contest or for popular smut videos to be listed, then we really need an alternative to Wikipedia. That's why I am actively seriously looking for that if anyone knows of such a thing.
"jibal the biggest issue is that those policies are applied arbitrarily"
Did I say otherwise? Did you address any of my actual points?
Again, it's a waste of time to whine about it. Wikipedia directly addresses your point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F
It doesn't matter how much other crap there is at Wikipedia ... it's a tu quoque fallacy. If you feel those articles are violations, you can move to delete them. The fact is that there are orders of magnitude more cruft on Wikipedia than people who take the time and effort to fix it. No one there will be sympathetic that there is lots of other junk, and it just confirms the view that the Nim page is part of the chaff. You need real arguments that the Nim page is within Wikipedia policy.
"Which makes no sense unless you are an admin who likes deleting things"
It's a fact of life that a couple of Wikipedia editors do appear to have a grudge against the Nim page. Given that one editor, Msnicki, has moved to delete the article several years in a row, you can bet that she will continue her campaign. And it's not just Nim ... when someone listed several other programming languages on her talk page and sarcastically suggested that she move to delete those too, that's exactly what she and her bud Padenton did. That's reality and we have to deal with it, and the way to deal with it is not to try to change Wikipedia ... that's a fool's errand.
"we really need an alternative to Wikipedia. That's why I am actively seriously looking for that if anyone knows of such a thing."
I don't think the word "seriously" belongs in that sentence. Wikipedia ranks sixth highest traffic site on the Web, above Amazon and Twitter. There's no need to ask anyone if they know of Wikipedia, contrary to this mythical "alternative".
The need is to be permanently listed at Wikipedia. I noted what that takes: get people not associated with Nim to contribute articles to journals or magazines. It's doable.
"And people will write articles about technologies that have Wikipedia articles and won't if they don't. Or they will write articles about funded technologies. So literally anyone with a rich uncle backing his company can get his technology mentioned in a few big publications just because it was funded."
Sorry, but that really isn't the way the world works. And even if it were, getting people to write about Nim is still doable.
The demographic doesn't matter ... we don't need people to read the article, just for it to exist. And besides, there are such places, e.g., http://www.theregister.co.uk/ ... given the number of comments on a recent article about C++, there's clearly an interested readership: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/27/c_daddy_bjarne_stroustrup_outlines_directions_for_v17/
And here's one list of academic journals; we can probably find others: http://www.software.ac.uk/resources/guides/which-journals-should-i-publish-my-software
And the journals don't need to be notable, just reliable per Wikipedia's definition. All of the above are.
And Hakand referred earlier to Turkish magazines that he thought he could get to publish something.