Note that at the time this was submitted, all the sourcing for the article came from either web pages from the project itself, or forum posts.
I am very confused as to when a programming language is notable enough to be present on wikipedia. Perhaps you can explain?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (ie, WP:OSE).
The short answer is, those other articles without references should also be put up for AfD.
The intended outcome of the AfD process isn't deletion; it's "delete unless we can find better sources", and proponents of the article are asked to find those sources. Here, the only external source found was a conference presentation by the author of the language, who was himself not WP-notable, at a conference in which most of the other presentations were also about prima facie non-notable languages.
1.comprehensive in terms of information.
Ward Cunningham, who invented the wiki, said this  about the fight, which I think provides a pretty good way of deciding what stays, what goes:
"I think that Wikipedia has been handling that [issue] fairly well. We could talk to people who are a little closer to the day-to-day Wikipedia and they could probably even correct me on this, but I think the more important notion is notable. The community has to agree upon what the criterion of notability is, and that's only because, there are forms of abuse that arise from non-notable people feigning notability. And that's the fight. And once you start fighting that fight, you find all kinds of stuff that doesn't pass muster that wasn't hurting anybody. And you say, well, in the sense of fairness, I've got to delete it too. And that's a tough thing."
I'm not understanding why this is important. If someone wants to write well cited articles about their personal exploits, I see no issue.
Why not just put the "This article isn't well cited" banner on the page? why not delete it?
Strictly, people putting the articles up for deletion are also asked to find sources first. Some of them do, and delete as a last resort. Others, not so much, and they want to delete a lot.
There are better methods than deletion for handling situations like this.
Or we could acknowledge that there are different reasonable standards for "notability" that apply in different contexts. The idea that something isn't "notable" unless it's been written about in the NY Times, WaPo, Financial Times, etc., is just not relevant to (most) software and related projects.
And if the Deletionists have "won" and there's no way to get this stuff on Wikipedia, there should be a way to use web-based technology to do something, like, oh, I don't know, some kind of federation / syndication approach where the corresponding article "exists" on Wikipedia but transparently redirects to the corresponding content on programming-languages-wiki.com or whatever.
C'mon, we can do better than just deleting stuff because we're adhering to some outdated, archaic notions about what is or isn't "notable".
There are specific (broadening) rules for some specific article categories, but the general rule is:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
The big thing that trips up hackers in articles about technology is "reliability" of sources, which you can imagine is a topic that has been discussed on WP probably in greater depth than in any venue in the world and perhaps all of human history, some of which coverage is here, in WP:RS:
Suffice it to say, the standard is NOT "The Washington Post".
I didn't state that the NTY is the standard. I am talking about the arguments usually offered up by the deletionists in the afd discussions, where they typically try to insist (and usually somewhat successfully) that a source needs to have the gravitas of the NTY, WaPo, etc., to be accepted. Yeah, it's bullshit, and I wish all those guys would read the above links, but it doesn't seem to happen.
So, you have the written de jure standard, as documented, and then you have the actual de facto standard which - often times - is quite different.
It doesn't help that the reliable sources guidelines hint at a bias towards "news sources" as a preferred source, in saying:
"News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact
Something people don't like to acknowledge in these arguments is that for every "Nimrod (Programming Language)" whose inclusion into WP would be harmless or even beneficial, there are 100 bullshit spam company promotion pages lawyering the rules of the site to keep their site bolted to the top of Google for some term they invented.
The news media is easy to cite, easier than many other sources, because the fundamental thing Wikipedia is looking for in a reliable source is a notion of editorial responsibility, and the news media is the world's canonical reference for "written accounts with editorial responsibility". But there are others as well.
Perhaps we simply have very different and incompatible goals of what we want Wikipedia to be.
Also, Wikipedia already puts rel=nofollow in its links. Also, why would someone want their site to appear at the top of Google for a term noöne uses? If they really push and advertise the term enough to make that worth-while, then it'll get talked about in other venues as well.
It's funny you brought it up, because Golang was nominated for AfD (go look at the Talk page), and even more sources were found; they just apparently weren't relevant to the article.
On the other hand: nobody seems to be able to find any sources for Nimrod.
That's a legitimate concern and I don't claim to have all the answers for all the problems that face Wikipedia. But I remain convinced that "context matters" and that, in context, Nimrod is notable enough that it should be in Wikipedia. Finding a way to reflect that distinction to the satisfaction of all parties involved is an open problem, granted.
In the AFD that is exampled here, the only sources offered were of the form of blogs and forum posts etc. Wikipedia has quite clear and explicit rules against those sorts of sources (for establishing notability) for very well explained reasons.
I've always been a bit rolly-eyes at situations like this...
Niche wikis are easy to start and can be well-maintained. I bet a programming wiki would be well serviced with a bit of effort.
Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopaedia that has rules designed to cover lots of content, but in such a way as to try and ensure it is as accurate and non-fancrufty as possible. Sometimes notable topics get pushed out on technicalities, sometimes fancruft sneaks in. It's an imperfect system, but in general there is a lot of information there.
Unfortunately there is a perception that Wikipedia is the place to be; and individuals with no investment other than to mention (I'm avoiding the word promote because of the connotations) their favourite topic pop their content in expecting it to be fine.
It's a little like the old forum ettiquette of the 90's - you didn't hope into a forum and start posting about your new programming language without first checking the forum rules to see if it was okay.
The Wikimedia Community is also a great curator for niche Wikis (see Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikiquote, Wiktionary et al.). They recently took on a couple of travel wiki communities.
The programming community is dedicated, large, and relatively well educated - there is no reason a Programming Wiki wouldn't work. It would, however, take time and effort for a group to bootstrap - and unfortunately Wikipedia is not the way to sidestep that leg work.
(speaking as a long term editor with several featured articles; so hence biased!)
All I can say is that my experience clearly differs from yours then. But I tend to get involved in the controversial afd discussions a lot, for some reason.
Again, "context matters". We need to find a way to incorporate that point. We can't just wave our hands, dismiss all blog posts and primary sources, and reject everything on those grounds. For a programming language (not just nimrod, but many languages) you just aren't going to get a lot of other sources. But, in context, they are notable and the sources are credible.
I'm not claiming to have a final answer to all of this, but I sense that we can do better.
Also, I don't know who created the original page, but how do you know it wasn't someone not on the core dev team? Perhaps everyone involved _did_ follow the rules, but interpreted "notability" differently.
Also, don't go all appeal to authority on us. I've been an editor for over 7 years now.
The simplest problem is that the whole charter of WP is to cover notable topics with reliable sources; that's the idea behind the project and has been forever.
One practical problem with it is that when none of your sources are independent or notable, disinterested parties can't fact-check anything, and the encyclopedia is only as accurate as cliques of interested editors choose to make it.
Once again, your argument relitigates the whole concept of WP. You don't have to like the concept, but you can't pretend that their adherence to their own charter is somehow a sign of dysfunction.
We can fix that...
So far the new/old page got one positive review.
The Wikipedia community has agreed a set of rules for creating articles. In this case the community review noted that no independent sourcing covered this language. If a deleted article is recreated substantially the same, it is removed.
So, there are correct options... (I appreciate from outside the community it is not always clear what they are - so a list!)
* Find those sorts of sources
* Ask for a review of the deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRV
* Work to clarify Wikipedia's specific notability rules for Software (here's a good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFTWARE)
* Fork Wikipedia and write about programming languages (I'm a big proponent of this, but no one seems willing to make the effort).
I see no reason in time, and there is plenty of time, that Nimrod won't obtain the sort of coverage that merits coverage in a general encyclopaedia.
That's right, deleting it again is unpleasant and no way to fix the problem and is a good way to stir up bad feelings and screwing over the topic from ever having a decent page.
> The Wikipedia community has agreed a set of rules for creating articles. In this case the community review noted that no independent sourcing covered this language. If a deleted article is recreated substantially the same, it is removed.
Independent sources do, the Deletionists, like yourself, just don't like them.
> I see no reason in time, and there is plenty of time, that Nimrod won't obtain the sort of coverage that merits coverage in a general encyclopaedia.
What type of coverage is that? What type of coverage could a programming language get that would allow it to be part of Wikipedia? Even Go only has a single newsworthy citation, the rest of blogs and its own site.
> * Fork Wikipedia and write about programming languages (I'm a big proponent of this, but no one seems willing to make the effort).
Because it's a stupid idea not to have at least basic information on wikipedia about these language. There are projects that aim to do that, e.g. http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Rosetta_Code so perhaps you should get off your high horse.
Why? Why is it stupid? Why does Wikipedia have to cover it?
This argument could be extended to everything. My company, that I work for, why couldn't I cover that using the couple of blogs about it and our own site?
Once you make this argument the scope of Wikipedia expands dramatically (remember, it is a founding principle that Wikipedia is curated not an indiscriminate collection).
If you're arguing that the notability rules are problematic for programming languages and need to be revised, then I agree.
Simply recreating articles is not going to affect that, leading to inconsistent results and well meaning efforts to clean up content causing this sort of confrontation.
Don't just drop content over and over in the hope that it will stay, that's not a workable approach. And, yes, it is rude. Throwing out ad hominems because you didn't get your way is also not very nice. Engage in the community, bring together some solid guidelines, and then create the content that meets those guidelines.
I've given you the starting base to bring those changes about - if you want to take that and go with it then please do make the effort.
If your position is that Wikipedia should cover everything, ever, then you're at odds with the Wikipedia community and should fork it (but I'd suggest you'll soon realise why those rules exist!).
You can say whatever you like, but due to such policies (e.g. rm-ing article about Django EDMS, I stopped donating to Wikipedia!
When you understand Wikipedia's charter, it's easy to understand why new programming languages are a tricky thing to write about: there are a lot of them, and most of them are not encyclopedia-notable. The arguments in favor of them all seem to involve relitigating the entire charter of Wikipedia to make room for new programming languages.