Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod (programming language) (2nd nomination)

Nimrod (programming language)

(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. Every source is WP:PRIMARY. Every one of them. Googling turned up posts to online discussion forums but nothing useful. Additionally, I note that the decision to delete at the previous AfD was unanimous for the same reasons. Msnicki (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 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 (e.g. I found nothing in Google scholar). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Only found primary sources and forum discussions on Google. SmackoVector (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Please do not. Not all sources are primary. Why are forum discussions not considered sufficient evidence? Furthermore, the Rust article also apparently lacks secondary sources yet it has not been nominated for deletion. I can find many more programming language articles which lack sources or only have primary sources: PEARL_(programming_language), Frink, Qore_(programming_language). dom96 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If no suitable sources can be found, it may only be a matter of time before those other articles are nominated for deletion as well. We do not keep an article because we have also have other stuff that's even worse. Msnicki (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet I'm sure nobody will ever delete the Rust article. So just say "created by a big company" is good enough and doesn't require secondary sources. That would at least be honest. Nimrod is used in the real world: http://forum.nimrod-code.org/t/189. Andreas Rumpf (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

The Rust article cites multiple, independent reliable sources. I found three reliable sources for PEARL_(programming_language) with just a couple of google searches, so that has the potential to be improved. I WP:PROD'ed Frink and Qore_(programming_language) as I'm not finding any WP:RS for them. Thanks for pointing those out. I'm happy to take a look at any other programming language article that you don't think meets the notability guidelines. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is a very recent article which includes some information about Nimrod: http://togototo.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/benchmarks-round-two-parallel-go-rust-d-scala-and-nimrod/. Is this a viable source? dom96 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Blogs and other self-published sources are not considered WP:RELIABLE sources for purposes of establishing WP:Notability at AfD. Further, the author of the blog appears to be anonymous, rendering this source especially weak. Msnicki (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Language is quite new and hasn't yet gained notability. Does not meet guidelines laid out in WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did my own search for reliable sources; came up empty. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this enough to prove notability? https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/nimrod-a-new-approach-to-meta-programming dom96 (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's an advertisement for a talk given by the author. It is not independent of the subject. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]