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!).