Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valoem (talk | contribs) at 02:25, 21 April 2015 (reopened AfD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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.
  • 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)[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)[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)[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)[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)[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)[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)[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)[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)[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)[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]
  • 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

  • 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, The Australian, 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nim_(programming_language)&oldid=657418030"