Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I do not see anything close to consensus in this discussion. Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified), but there is no consensus whether these sources actually create sufficient notability. The votes are slightly skewed to the keep side due to canvassed users, but certainly there are also several long-time Wikipedia editors who are arguing keep. One can try again in a couple of years and see how the sourcing situation has changed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nim (programming language)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Nim (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The deletion log for this article shows that it has deleted twice at AfD in 2010 and 2013 and recreated and speedy deleted twice in 2013 and 2014 under the previous title, Nimrod (programming language). This version was declined as Draft:Nim (programming language) in 2014. Speedy deletion was declined this time based on new sources not present previously. I'm not sure which sources are new since I don't have access to the old version and it was never snapshotted at archive.org but all of the sources currently offered are WP:PRIMARY, WP:UNRELIABLE blogs or otherwise unsuitable. The only reliable source offered, a Dr. Dobbs article, only makes a trivial mention of the subject. Google searches for Nim and Nimrod turned up nothing helpful. Recommending WP:SALT. Msnicki (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept user-generated sources as evidence of notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Learnxinyminutes is not a self published source. Outside contributions must submit a pull-request where there is some degree of peer review and finally must be accepted by the website/repository maintainers to feature in the page. The stackoverflow and irc channel link are simply further evidence that the language is used "by anyone other than the creators" that Margin1522 requested. Caroliano (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
The test for programming languages seems to be whether they are actually being used by anyone other than the creators. -- There is only one creator, but there certainly are many more than one user, so by your own criterion the language is notable. -- 98.171.173.90 (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your week keep. I would like to note that while there is one creator there is a very lively community (see freenode channel #nim FreenodeStats). Many of these community members contribute to Nim and, as a result, become a contributing author of the software. Having high numbers of developers actively joining an open source software project on a daily basis is in itself an indication of notoriety Itsmeront (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Example of contributions to NIM by the community Video showing contributions over time Itsmeront (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep The company where I work, http://www.snapdisco.com, has recently switched to Nim for our internal software development. (We develop software for image processing and computer vision.) We initially developed our software in Python, which is webservice-friendly and has NumPy and SciPy for numerical computing, but we switched to Nim for its unique combination of coding expressiveness and runtime performance. Because Nim compiles to C, we can integrate our Nim code into our Python code as Python extension modules. We are not the language creators, but our software is proprietary. How can we prove that we are using Nim? (Disclaimers: 1. This Wikipedia account, from which I'm commenting, was created for the purpose of commenting on this AfD. 2. I have never edited/contributed to the Wikipedia page for Nim, so I have no vested interest there. 3. I have never committed any code to the Nim language, so I am not a "creator". 4. My company does use the Nim programming language. 5. I am an active member of the Nim user community.) — jboyme (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that jboyme (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    Also, here's another independent, published source: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 In this article from April 17, 2014, Nim(rod) is described as a language "on the rise" by an independent reporter, along with Clojure, Julia (programming language), OCaml (whoops, that's hardly a new language...) and Racket (programming language) (whoops, also not so new). But the section on Nim (slide 9) is clearly significant as required by WP:GNG ("more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material") and the article is clearly an independent secondary source. — jboyme (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that jboyme (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    I don't believe that qualifies as a WP:SECONDARY source. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. It doesn't look to me like the author was doing any more than just copy-editing the primary source for space, the same way a news organization might copy edit a press release, also without adding their own interpretation or analysis. I don't see anything here that represents his own ideas. I certainly don't get the impression the author downloaded the compiler and tried it out as he would have to for an actual review. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that simply choosing to include Nim in this article, a stated list of languages "on the rise", is a representation of the author's own ideas: The idea that Nim is on the rise and (as the author suggests on the first slide) "could have meaningful impact on modern programming as it evolves". (The languages in the article are ordered alphabetically, so we can't read anything into Nim's position on slide 9.) I would argue that the facts the author chose to include in the terse description of Nim (such as not needing a VM or runtime) represent the author's interpretation of what is worthy about the language. For example, noting that Nim compiles down to C and thus doesn't need a VM or runtime, seems to me to be a comment on Nim's stated goal "without compromises on runtime efficiency". For about half the languages the author presents (eg, Ceylon, Clojure, Groovy, Hack), the language is described primarily in contrast to another more-widely-known language (often Java). This is also the case for the description of Nim (again, contrasting it with Java's need for the JVM). I agree that the article is not particularly well-written; but I still assert that the article (poorly-written as it is) does qualify as a WP:SECONDARY source. Finally, I disagree with the suggestion that it is necessary to download a compiler and try it out, before one can write a review about a language: One can review a language's syntax, stdlib API, or even design goals, for example. It's not necessary for the author to review the operation of the Nim compiler specifically, for the article to be a valid WP:SECONDARY source about the Nim language. — jboyme (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, look at it this way: We have a definition of and a prohibition against WP:OR. My take is that if an editor here were to create a similar summary of primary information, we would judge that as allowed because there's nothing original there, only a paraphrasing of the original source. A secondary source has to have some original thought to make it secondary and this article doesn't have that. Does that help? Msnicki (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a valid source, and can be counted towards notability. Even with this, though, I don't think we yet have enough to meet WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage". We have a paragraph here, and a short mention here. I think we need to see at least one more solid source before this passes the guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles about Nim in blogs and such:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8811132
Of course, they are self published and not peer reviewed, but many of them are posted to Hacker News and r/programming, openly discussed there, usually errors are pointed and the author accepts the feedback and correct the original article, etc. And it is those blog posts that normal people rely when they need to, for example, discover how to make a Nim library.
And everyone that is from outside Wikipedia are surprised to discover that Nim isn't considered notable enough for wikipedia (and those who aren't usually abandoned wikipedia editing due to those deletion sprees):
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2r06ej/what_is_special_about_nim/cnb8s9i
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6627318
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5564931&cid=47724581
Common sense indicates that Nim is notable. Caroliano (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
I looked at all three of those discussion pages and on every one of them, several people explained that we decide whether to keep an article based on whether there are reliable independent secondary sources and that there are no such sources supporting notability of this subject. We do not accept primary, self-published and unreliable sources including things like blogs. We also do not keep an article because there's another article on WP that you think is even worse. If you think it's worse, go ahead and nominate it for AfD. If you're right, we'll delete that one, too. All of this was explained in those very pages you offered so I have no idea why you think they support your !vote to keep. If you would like to have an article on Nim, all it takes is a couple short articles on the subject by people who are independent of the creator of the language offering their thoughts about it. Techie magazines are dying for content. Get them to publish your articles, then come back here and you can have your article here, no problem. Heck, we don't even where it's published as long as it's a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. It could be a hobbyist magazine or even TV Guide for all we care. But publish somewhere else, first. Convince them this an important subject and then you'll convince us. It's not that hard. Msnicki (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a WP:COMMON pledge. Open source projects that are not made by academics or big names in the industry, do not usually have peer reviewed articles or traditional press about them. It remembers me of Anki deletion. Despite already having tens of thousands blog and forum posts about it, and being THE reference for spaced repetition flashcard software (to the point it is difficult to find an independent blog post about that who won't cite Anki), it was almost deemed not notable by Wikipedia. Of course one or two shitty articles of the type "I tried anki for a day" (or not even that) in mainstream magazines are a infinitely more strong notability indicators than hundreds of much higher quality independent blog posts (/sarcasm). Nim right now is nowhere near the size of Anki userbase though.
I understand the need for solid and not easily abusable guidelines for notability and RS, but IMHO this is a case where common sense must also be weighted. I don't think wikipedia will become better by removing Nim's article. Yes, people in the links I posted explained the reason it was deleted, nonetheless there was many people from outside Nim that expressed the desire to see a Nim article here, and that it looked like just a big burocracy issue (see WP:BURO), that your post also seems to support. Also on those links, there are many people that stopped contributing to Wikipedia once the work they put editing a page about something they use and think is important was thrown in the trash when the article was deleted. This don't helps Wikipedia.
And I never said to keep this article because there are worse ones. I think it should be kept by it's own importance. Caroliano (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Comment Can this article be merged anywhere? If the consensus ends up that Nim is still not notable enough for a stand alone article per Wikipedia rules, I argue that it is still plenty notable enough for being in Wikipedia (see WP:NOTEWORTHY). Is there some "Lists of new programming languages from 2008" or a comparative table where it fits? If there is not, I think such a page should be created, as it would remove much attrition from deletion requests like this (it would not be a total deletion, more of a move), as well as having the redirect in place will prevent newbies from re-creating the article thinking Wikipedia is missing information (as already happened with Nim, as per one of my links). Less useless energy dispended across language deletions and more useful and organized content in Wikipedia. Seems like a win-win. Caroliano (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    Yes, merge is always an option at AfD but it's helpful if you can identify where you'd like it merged. Msnicki (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick search brought up List of programming languages by type#Imperative languages, but that would be more of a redirect target than a merge target. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I posted that comment exactly because I couldn't find somewhere it could be merged. Esoteric programming languages do have some less notable languages in the article itself, but there is no similar place for other types of languages. That is why I suggested some type of "programming language nursery" like "List of new programming languages from [year x]" where most languages can get a paragraph or two plus a info box, for example. I think that having a register of the diversity of programming languages is important for Wikipedia, even if individually they are not notable. And as I said, it would reduce the drama on programming language articles deletions, as they can turn into merges. Eventually they can get their own articles as they grow and accumulate references (or they may simply die and leaving their imprint). Caroliano (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Caroliano (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Delete Per nom. @Caroliano: ycombinator, reddit, and slashdot are not reliable sources, so Nim's presence on them is irrelevant. ycombinator is a startup culture, they'll praise nearly anything. 400 repositories on github by 55 people, also irrelevant to the discussion here, is actually pretty low. 80.134.235.230 (talk) It's not listed in the Redmonk programming language rankings... ― Padenton|✉   14:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any references to substantiate your objection that 400 repositories is actually pretty low. I would argue that you are absolutely wrong. Notice the top 50 languages here. Note number 49 on the list which currently has fewer than 400 repositories would currently be replaced by Nim based on more recent activity. It is also clear that you are not a programmer if you believe that ycombinator, reddit and slashdot are not essential locations for professional programmers. While there exists some startup culture, that is by no means the dominant culture. The dominant culture is of discovery and sharing information. Those sites, given their popularity, have become very valuable resources for solving difficult programming problems and sharing ideas and programming theory. In essence, they have become a more live version of the popular secondary sources you are looking for.Itsmeront (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
@Itsmeront: Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Sources here need to be credible and reliable. If someone cited a ycombinator/reddit/slashdot post in a publication submitted to a peer-reviewed they would be laughed out of academia. They are not reputable sources. Even StackOverflow and Quora (both of which are far more reliable than the 3 of those) do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. ― Padenton|✉   18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It is on the chart, way down at the bottom left corner. I think I'm going to change my !vote to weak keep, due to the activity by the user community. The bar for programming languages has always been quite low. Generally all we require is that it be in use by someone other than the creators. And apparently it is, which is more than we could say of the others that have appeared here recently. But I really would like to encourage the users to get some respectable references. Currently the article is citing this, about the guy who couldn't get his routine to return an integer. That's not the kind of reference that shows notability. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've made that comment a couple times, that all we generally require is that it be in use but that's not my experience. Per WP:NSOFT, It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. But in the footnote, it says, Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without using WP:Synthesis. Sourceforge, independent project wiki's, and other self-published sites are excluded from this definition, which I understand to mean you still to satisfy notability the old-fashioned way. The big reason I can see why some language AfDs might get closed as keep more often than they should is because they're often overrun with SPAs, who generally never understand how notability works here and, even when it's explained, always, always, always complain how unfair and bureaucratic we are because their language is so important. Msnicki (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The citation you are referring to refers to my post in which I say that I was able to get a barebones Android project in Nim working. A screenshot is included in my post but due to a forum bug does not currently show up. If you look at the rest of the forum thread you will see that the original author also states that he was able to get Nim working on Android. dom96 (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is my belief that Wikipedia editors are being a bit too harsh on Nim. The guidelines regarding notability rules should not apply equally to every article topic, I think that programming languages in particular are less likely to be covered by notable tech sites. I am not familiar with a single notable website specifically dealing with programming news apart from Dr Dobbs (which is now dead but which has an article about Nim). I would also argue that the Dr Dobbs article is enough to establish notability, while it has been written by the author of Nim it must have had at least some validation done by Dr Dobbs authors. Surely a reputable source wouldn't publish false articles? dom96 (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really interested in examples of tech sites that Nim should be published in to become notable. The lack of reply seems to suggest that none exist which reaffirms the arguments I made, I sincerely hope my comments don't get ignored in this debate. dom96 (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Just because those haven't been deleted, doesn't make this article subject notable. ― Padenton|✉   00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 10:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software

Often, the size of developer base, and automatically-generated statistics about the project longevity and activity can be found on sites such as Ohloh (example for Foswiki - https://www.ohloh.net/projects/foswiki) or GitHub (example for MojoMojo - http://github.com/marcusramberg/mojomojo/). Most such software is not the "subject of multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial, published works", and most can never be. Discounting web reviews and blogs as references[1] is disconnected from reality in the case of the "paperless encyclopedia".

Blogs should be notable enough. There's plenty of blogposts about Nim(rod) metaprogramming. And it's not hard to google.
https://www.openhub.net/p/Nimrod
https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=language%3ANimrod&type=Repositories&ref=searchresults
Nim is a powerful programming language. It would be a shame if Wikipedia didn't have an article about it. 46.72.203.44 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 46.72.203.44 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Keep. I have no horse in this game, other than being having a long-standing interest in programming languages, major and minor. Nim is definitely in the latter category. When I come across something like a minor programming language, I want to come to Wikipedia to learn more about it. Finding that the page has been deleted feels like bureaucracy and perhaps deletionism gone amok. There is clearly enough of a user community that Nim counts as a real programming language rather than just a toy. The article could definitely stand to be improved, but even now it's a lot better than no article. Raph Levien (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nim is a very interesting programming language and people actually use it:
https://github.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=language%3ANimrod&type=Repositories&ref=searchresults
I don't understand the concept of "Wikipedia's Notability" but removing this article would be a loss for Wikipedia because Nim is a feature-rich programming language with a lovely syntax that people use and Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the language because Wikipedia editors somehow didn't find it notable enough. This whole discussion looks like trolling and it pains me. Even if Nim really isn't that popular it still does deserve a Wikipedia article about it because I'm sure a lot of people would find it very interesting.
Sorry about my English. 46.72.203.44 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 46.72.203.44 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Here's me again. I'm still very upset.
If you are having a hard time finding information about Nim try to google "nimrod metaprogramming". Nim isn't the most popular language right now but its metaprogramming capabilities are quite "notable".
That's maybe my opinion but I'm certain that after the language is 1.0, which probably will happen soon, the language will be cited and discussed everywhere and the article will be revived again, which would be somewhat silly because it was removed so many times because reasons.
Nim is a well designed programming language. There are projects written in it. There's a community around the language. I personally like the language a lot and use it. But somehow Wikipedians think it's not worthy of Wikipedia. I don't understand this at all. It doesn't look unbiased. 93.88.130.208 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 93.88.130.208 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
  • Weak Keep. The language itself is probably notable enough. But the current article's sources are very poor, so imo this is more a question of whether a verifiable article can be written, than an question of notability. Citing random Slashdot posts and reddit posts is about as good as not citing anything, since random Wikipedians could state their opinion just as well as random Slashdotters or Redditors can, but would still not constitute a proper citation. I would support keeping, but paring it down considerably to a stub that can be sourced to at least the good first-party sources (e.g. the manual and the Dr. Dobbs article). --Delirium (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep So we have:
  • A mention in a Dr. Dobbs article on programming languages in 2013 [1];
  • A Dr. Dobbs article written by the designer of the language [2];
  • Part of a not-too-serious list in InfoWorld [3];
  • It's recognized by GitHub as programming language.
I think this is exactly balancing on where I would draw the line of notability for a programming language (if the mention in the first article wasn't just a plug for the second article, the second Dr. Dobbs article was written by someone independent of the language, and the InfoWorld article a bit less obviously filler material, I'd probably have argued more strongly for a keep, but this is not the case). If kept only factual material should be included in the article (which apart form the "efficient, expressive, and elegant programming language" doesn't seem to be too much of a problem with the current article). The reddit/Slashdot citations can probably go, they are in most cases as good as having no citations. —Ruud 12:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find I'm in exact agreement with you about the existence of sources about the topic, and about the recognition on GitHub. My opinion is that this is still not quite enough to pass WP:GNG, however. I could be persuaded to switch to support with another solid source, but I haven't found anything so far (and I've been following all the links that others have posted to this discussion). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This language is in the gray area where there is some subjective and objective evidence that it's a bit more than a random toy project, but not not enough to make it clearly notable. In the end it doesn't really matter if we keep or delete it: articles about such languages always end up being so bland that no one will miss out on anything if we delete it, or be misled if we keep it. There are more important articles to be written and more worrisome cruft to be deleted. It's quite interesting to see that the articles where it matters the least if they are kept or deleted, always end up generating the most discussion. —Ruud 15:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While the article is right next to the edge of being notable the subject is well known enough to a large enough audience that deletion of this article now would inevitable cause the article to be restored at a later date in the near future. And before someone says otherwise: This argument does not violate WP:CRYSTAL as the subject already has attention, it's just that a reliable source hasn't written about it yet. Despite saying that this is only a weak keep I believe that this AfD is an inappropriate use of most contributors time precisely because of the reason explained, but to each to his own. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to me that wikipedia editors have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to slashdot. While it is true that anyone can place an article on slasdot that does not mean it will make it to a full article and get ANY attention. You seem to be assuming that the links you are reading about Nim on slashdot are such submissions. They are not! Before the slashdot article appared for the general readers this article had to make it through firehose. More then 500 people voted up this article (this means 500 people + one person for every vote down) Slash Dot Nim Votes. Once the article appeard on slashdot proper it received over 520 comments. This is not your regular someone posted something to slashdot so you can just ignore it article. I challenge you to find an article on a programming language in slashdot proper (not firehose) that wikipedia would reject as not notable. I would aruge that if an article about a programming language makes it all the way through slashdot firehose, it SHOULD be notable enough for wikipedia. Especially since it seems obvious that the editors are not programmers and are not qualified to judge notibility in programming, which seems to follow different rules for notablity then other subjects (at least to us lowly professional programmers). Itsmeront (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
@Itsmeront: Slashdot does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, neither are user votes. As such, Nim's popularity on there is irrelevant to its notability. This is an encyclopedia, and the fact that a few people are fans of this obscure language is irrelevant to its notability, especially since the majority of keep votes on here came to this thread after being WP:CANVAS'ed (see links above), with the stated goal of stacking the votes. As for your claim that "it is obvious that the editors are not programmers and are not qualified to judge notibility in programming", Well done. You've made incorrect assumptions about everyone who disagrees with you and included a false premise as well.
  1. Most of the people saying delete are actually in computer science and software engineering. We just know that Reddit, SlashDot, GitHub, and every other site that relies on user-submitted content, are not reliable sources, and do not satisfy WP:GNG for this article. Popularity != Notability. If this language had any actual notability,
  2. One doesn't need to be a programmer to understand and correctly apply Wikipedia policies, though many active editors are indeed programmers. We're not here to discuss the programming language's merits, but its impact and whether there is significant coverage of it by reliable sources independent of people who would benefit from its popularity. ― Padenton|✉   18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Padenton:Please explain why GitHub is not a reliable source. GitHub is the largest code hoster in the world and it has the largest community. Nim is recognized as a language on GitHub, which by itself is very notable, and Nim has a community on GitHub. How exactly is it not notable? If I follow your logic then: why even have any articles about any programming languages, all programs are user-generated anyway, let's remove all articles about programming. One does need to be a programmer to understand how notable a language is. Nim's presence on GitHub should at least prove that it's a real programming language and that people use the language. 93.88.130.208 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 93.88.130.208 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Go read this article: WP:RS, it explains our policy on reliable sources. Other programming language articles are about programming languages that have had an impact. This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not for promoting every piece of software that someone invents (See WP:NOTPROMOTION) ― Padenton|✉   19:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Padenton: Wikipedia policies for establishing the notability of a programming language or such technology are simply insane, and I refuse to abide by such insanity, although it may have merit for other articles. Linking users to policies doesn't change the fact that the policies are stupid. --IO Device (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@IO Device: Not sure what to tell you. ― Padenton|✉   19:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Padenton: Sorry my IP is changed. I should probably register. I just want to make something clear first. I'm a random programmer from Russia and English isn't my first language. I did not contribute anything to Nim. I do not have any agenda. However I invested a month of my life into coding in Nim at my job, which is an animation studio. I was very impressed with Nim and especially its macros and compile time code execution. There aren't that many languages that can do this. Nim's metaprogramming capabilities are extremely noteworthy, and people really do find it fascinating https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nimrod+metaprogramming I personally find the language very interesting and I don't understand why an encyclopedia shouldn't have an article about the language. Nim's compiler itself is actually very notable: it's a large project, it's written in Nim, and there aren't many other languages that can match its features. Removal of this article would make Wikipedia worse and nothing else. 46.72.203.44 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 46.72.203.44 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Please note that as wikipedes, we're kind of slow moving. The wannabe elitist nature of our site, and our concomitant efforts to preserve our pedestal in the public eye, together prevent us from diluting our content to what is substantiated by mere forks of forks. As a programmer, surely you understand - some pull requests must essentially be declined, and so must this article. We are driven by what we call WP:POLICY - this is enforced mercilessly by the WP:POLICE. Perhaps the future will bring A New Hope, but until then, the Wiki Empire and its Deletion System, with the capability to destroy an entire article, shall prevail. --IO Device (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I think it's important here to remember the spirit of the policies as well as the letter. We have notability guidelines for two reasons. One is that a notable topic is likely to have reliable sources, which is how we try to ensure that articles are reliable and verifiable. But the goal is the information. No matter how reliable the source, it's still a judgment call as to whether any particular piece of information is reliable or not. So the question is whether the information in this article is reliable. As of now, I think it's OK to say that this is a pretty conservative article with content that is easily verifiable from a variety of sources. So that's one. The second reason is to prevent the encyclopedia from becoming a collection of indiscriminate information. We don't want people here promoting their latest app just because they want the world to know about it. This again is kind of a judgment call, but overall just being invited to contribute to Dr. Dobbs is an endorsement. It was included in the RedMonk chart, which (yes) is based on GitHub and Stack Overflow activity, but more activity is better than less. And we have well informed people arriving here at AfD to tell us directly why this language is significant. I've voted to delete most of the languages that come up here, and I would do the same for most of those that have been mentioned as OTHERSTUFF. But to come back to the basic question – would including this language be indiscriminate? – I think the answer is no. There are enough criteria that this one passes and others don't to say that it's notable enough. Barely, but notable enough that it's far from an obvious delete. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Stradivarius: a new notability guideline would be appreciated. It would however help if the guideline applies not only to programming languages, but to software in general. --IO Device (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@IO Device: It already exists, it's at WP:NSOFT.― Padenton|✉   16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to continue the argument that Slashdot is a reliable source for programming languages notability. Slashdot is a WP:NEWSBLOG. It is a publication, like a magazine that has a very large readership. While it allows readers to submit blogs, it provides editorial control, through both it's voting system, and it's comment section. Articles on Slashdot that make it through to a actual article about programming languages should be considered reliable secondary sources.
In addition, you have also made the argument that WP:BLOGS are not to be used as reliable secondary sources. Please note: 'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' WB:BLOGS Goran Krampe is a noted expert in the field of Computer Languages [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]]. He is one of the original Guides for Alan Kay's Squeak Smalltalk, has worked with some of the best programmers in the workd. Based on your own guidelines his blogs may be considered, and I aruge, SHOULD, be considered reliable. [Goran Krampe's articles on Nim] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmeront (talk • contribs) 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Duplicate "keep" stricken. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It means we might consider an WP:SPS reliable for certain things. For example, we might accept an WP:SPS as acceptable for establishing certain facts about the subject, e.g., that Nim supports term rewriting macros and that they do whatever they do. It does not mean we accept that because an expert wrote about the subject in his blog that that makes the subject notable. Reliable for establishing facts is not the same as reliable for establishing notability. And the reason is that the essence of notability here on WP is not that anyone should take note of the subject, it's that they did and that they did it in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. A blog is never that. Msnicki (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Msnicki: This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the subject of new language development, expert analysis and review are critical to the development of a community, especially in open source projects. The fact that an expert in a field BLOGS about a language is in itself an indication of Notability. Do you not agree that gaining the attention of experts in the field, even if the field is small, is an indication of Notability? It seems to me that you expect books to be written about people writing new programming languages. I can't find one single book, nor can I find books reviewing new programming languages. What I can find is a number of blogs written by experts in the field links Notice that a large minority of Blogs reference RedMonk and that Nim is included in their rankings (something we have already pointed out many times). While I agree that in some cases blogs should not be considered an indication of Notability, the development of New Programming Languages should not be one of them. The fact that there is no NIM book published is only a temporary situation. I'm not sure if you have actually looked at the link | Sample of Nim Documentation. I understand that Andreas has already been approached to write one by a very reputable publisher. Again my argument is this. In situations where a very small group of experts exist in a given field, having the policy that published articles by secondary sources should exclude blogs raises the bar of notability excessively high. In Programming language development, which this article represents, the community is king. Gaining the attention of the front page of Slashdot, or being mentioned in an experts blog is the pinnacle of notability and is critical to gaining traction. Nim has done that but even more I would like to stress that ANY new programming language that is mentioned by a number of experts in the field on their blogs or makes it to the front page of slashdot should be considered notable. WP policies seem to make allowance for these types of exceptions. I am only arguing that they should be applied liberally to new programming languages Itsmeront (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
@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. ― Padenton|✉   17:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Padenton:Please see the the links to expert qualifications above, posted previously in this thread.


@Widefox: 99bottles is an essay on non-notability, it doesn't grant notability. The 99 bottles site allows anyone to contribute to it. I can write a new language tomorrow and submit a 99bottles to the site the next day. Furthermore, this is what, the 5th time 99BOTTLES has been used in any discussion? ― Padenton|✉   14:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Widefox; talk 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Widefox:Okay, fair enough. Do you have any reasons why Nimrod should be excepted from the notability guideline? ― Padenton|✉   16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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. Widefox; talk 17:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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 [Puppet]. I was able to find a single article on Google Scholar [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: [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. Itsmeront (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Itsmeront (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
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. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.57.87 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Philip.wernersbach (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources don't need to be academic - they just need to pass Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. For example, news articles on tech news sites would do nicely, as would books with titles like "Nim for Dummies". (It doesn't need to be the whole book, either - a page or two would be enough.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... If the sources don't need to be academic then the page may be able to meet Wikipedia's standards at some point in the future. I'm keeping with my vote for now though. Nim currently has a lot of content published about it, but it's all self-published. For instance, Andrea Ferretti wrote a neutral Nim vs Rust comparison at https://andreaferretti.github.io/on-rust-and-nim/, but it's self-published and thus unusable as a source. Andreas Rumpf gave a presentation at StrangeLoop about Nim and why its meta programming capabilities are important (available at http://www.infoq.com/presentations/nimrod), which means that someone at StrangeLoop looked over his presentation and decided it was notable enough for a talk. However, Andreas Rumpf is the creator of Nim so this source cannot be used as well because it violates viewpoint neutrality. Philip.wernersbach (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to bring attention to a somewhat urgent issue. The current page was invalidly copy-paste restored from the draft article Draft:Nim (programming language). I've elaborated and put more details on the article talk page: Talk:Nim_(programming_language)#Invalid_restore_from_draft. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not too bad if the closing admin considers history merges as challenge: Before 2015-02-17 the relevant history is in the old article (=draft), then that was copied wholesale to the new page as shown in your diff replacing the new stub, and the relevant editing continued on the new page. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a slight overlap between the copy-and-paste move, so a history merge wouldn't be appropriate (that would leave Gregh3285's earliest revisions to the current article with nowhere to go). See WP:PV for the general principle. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 03:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Nim for the first time on the Rosetta Code site tonight. I was impressed by its conciseness, so I decided to so see what, if anything, Wikipedia had to say on the subject. I was please to find a very quick overview, an indication of possible spheres of utility and a direction to further sites. I am informed by the notices that the article relies overly on primary sources that the article in not perfect and that this computer language currently has minority interest. Well, yes. Wikipedia is a dynamic site and will always contain some articles of that sort by its very nature. However I am utterly bewildered why anyone should wish to remove the article because it does not fulfil perhaps overly stringent guidelines for citations. Are you sure you're actually trying to inform people are are you just trying to stand in judgment over what constitutes a notable citation. It's the strength of Wikipedia that an article on Nim can appear, albeit imperfectly. Nim does not and will quite probably not appear in any edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. It's the USP of Wikipedia that it appears here. 188.29.80.41 (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC) (I'm a fairly regular user of Wikipedia who does not wish to get embroiled in debates such as these).[reply]

arbitrary break

[edit]
  • Comment I did a non admin closure for this AfD to try to lightened the load for admins stating:

The result was no consensus. Due to the controversial nature of the debate I have included a note. The arguments put for by dom96, Delirium, Erik.Bjareholt, Itsmeront suggest that the subject passes GNG based on sources such as but not limited to, Infoworld, Dr. Dobbs, and others. Those favoring deletion believe these sources are not sufficient and the article require additional sourcing. There appears to be a lack of consensus. I am not an admin, so reverting if contested is not an issue.

It had been opened for nearly a month this no comment for a week. @Padenton: has contested this close so admin intervention is required. Valoem talk contrib 02:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have been a bit lazy regarding this, given that I am the one who posted the not a vote tag. I have now tagged those I suspect are most likely to be the canvassed users. I tagged users based on their activity aside from Nim (programming language). The links to where they were canvassed are in the header above. There were additional locations in the IRC logs where it was done as well, but I didn't find any useful information there as to who found out from there. I do not envy the admin that closes this and has to drudge through the marshes on this. Note that while I have tagged 6/7, there are other keep and weak keep arguments, including some that were indeed based on policy. Some are by experienced editors, some are by inexperienced editors which I did not feel comfortable assuming as canvassed. ― Padenton|✉   03:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of consensus based on strong policy for delete vs IAR / borderline GNG, userify may be another option (to the seemingly obvious no-consensus). Widefox; talk 11:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, userify is not and never was an option for this article. That would for all intents and purposes be akin to deletion. --IO Device (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this article isn't worthy of being in the main namespace, then just delete it. Half-measures like this aren't good for anyone. Philip.wernersbach (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite strenuous efforts the sources to support notability simply aren't there. The article cites an array of unreliable and obviously primary sources (GitHub, slashdot, reddit, blogs, etc). The only ones which look more respectable are [9] and [10] and since both were written by the creator of the language they can't be considered completely independent of the subject. I don't think the sources presented here are much more impressive. [11] and [12] are obviously trivial mentions. [13] is a bit better but we can't base notability on what amounts to one slide in a presentation.
    We also have various other arguments, but none is consistent with our notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether people think that this programming language is interesting, whether it is used by people, or whether it is recognised by someone as a language unless it has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Someone argued above that there is some kind of systematic bias against availability of reliable sources on this subject. I think the exact opposite is true: Wikipedians tend to be interested in technology and the open-source movement, and tend to prefer sources which are available for free on the internet. An open-source programming language is exactly the link of area where I would expect a particularly exhaustive search of the available sources. Hut 8.5 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not really convinced by the SPA keep votes who were canvassed. I think it really fails GNG and it cites a lot of sources that aren't really reliable anyway. The deleters above have made a much more convincing argument. — kikichugirl oh hello! 21:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is a result of canvassing in #wikipedia-en, and must be discounted for the same reasons noted in the comment. Or are we saying the canvassing has been unbiased? --IO Device (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you charge canvassing, you need to provide a link to the diff, please. Msnicki (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happened was someone came into IRC discussing this AFD, but in fact, they were more for supporting keeping of this article. Indeed, I was notified, which is permitted, but not canvassed, because that implies an inclination to make editors vote a certain way. No one asked me to comment in favor of delete on this AFD. I simply saw it being discussed and decided to voice my 2cents. I did not participate in the IRC discussion, I just saw it as I was going about my day. — kikichugirl oh hello! 06:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, canvassing is often appropriate. In fact, any post on a noticeboard fits the definition of 'canvassing.' The reason the posting on the nim irc is inappropriate canvassing is that it was both off-wiki (see 'stealth canvassing') and a biased audience (see 'vote stacking'). We can argue whether or not the posting of it on the official wikipedia IRC is inappropriate stealth canvassing, but the nim IRC is certainly more of a violator on this front than the official wikipedia IRC due to its lack of transparency. I do concede that the message in the nim IRC is not a biased message (not 'campaigning') as the forum post originally was, though there were other postings to that IRC in the logs, but as stated, it has other issues transparency-wise and audience-wise. However, I did not see the message in #wikipedia-en. If it was in some way arguing for one view or another, that we can talk about. ― Padenton|✉   15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice attempt at spinning things to suit you. But make no mistake, your post is one of a selfish hypocrite, and this whole page is nothing short of an embarrassment. The day of Wikipedia are limited; it won't be long before it is surpassed by an automatedly-written alternative. Just you wait. --IO Device (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No spin here. You're welcome to read it yourself. As for an automated Wikipedia replacement, speaking as an AI student, I find that highly doubtful. ― Padenton|✉   05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very simply this language has come to my attention. I am not a follower of blogs, tweet, ... social media etc. I do not expect to see an article in the New York Times or Washington Post regarding this language in the next 10 years. I come to wikipedia to learn about things. It would be a shame if I could not find out about this here. I think it should remain. I do not post often which in some opinions diminishes the weight of my words, but please consider I have decided to expend some of my precious time for this. brucekg (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)brucekg[reply]
  • Delete. Whilst well-referenced at first glance, the citations are primarily to user-generated content such as Reddit, Nim's own website, and other unreliable sources. I am also disappointed at the apparent meat-puppetry/vote-stacking on this debate. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would argue that if OSCON has found Nim notable so should wikipedia. OSCON 2015. Andreas has been invited to speak at a very popular convention. We have continually showed the editors that the references are expert reviews of a notable programming language WB:BLOGS which can be considered since the authors are experts. We have shown that a news blog with editorial control has featured Nim WP:NEWSBLOG, we have shown that Nim is extremely popular by citing github stats and inclusion on RedMonk. You have waved your hands and turned up your nose or called it fluff but you have not answered why these editoritial policies should not be applied. They clearly show that Nim is notable. Itsmeront (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only one !vote per person, please. You've already !voted. Msnicki (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His 3rd vote in fact. ― Padenton|✉   02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, if only because of the Dr. Dobbs source. I know it's written by the language creator, but I still feel it's good enough as it has been published by an independent publication who obviously decided it was important or notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nim_(programming_language)&oldid=1140220019"