Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemerle

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete . The consensus below is clear that most of the references provided do not rise to the level of WP:Reliable sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemerle

edit
Nemerle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable programming language. The only hits on Google for this language aside from the main website are blogs discussing syntax and a question or two on StackOverflow. Notability tag for nearly 2 years. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than 100 questions in StackOverflow where Nemerle is quoted. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. OK, I've got the idea. We can start from Nemerle. Then we can delete Pure, Haskell, OCaml, SML. We definitely get rid of Miranda, Clean and Curry. All these languages don't seem to be popular enough on StackOverflow. Come on, how the hell Nemerle is non-notable? This is one of the most popular non Microsoft languages on the .NET platform. And one of the most interesting. Try to finish your education first before deleting the languages that you don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Most popular, most interesting do not establish notability. Haskell, OCaml, and SML are definitely notable, as established by reliable, verifiable sources. I'm not sure what your argument is. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Microsoft Research is not reliable for you? Or Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where people can learn something new including programming languages that they've never heard before. And you are not the one to talk about Nemerle reliability as you didn't even bother to carefully check which "reliable sources" for this language are truly available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.24.190 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. No, coming out of Microsoft Research does not automatically establish notability. I could put an article about my own pet language on my personal website and say "Princeton University, one of the most prestigious universities in the world, is not reliable for you?" Logical fallacies do not establish notability, inclusion on Wikipedia does not automatically establish notability, reliable and verifiable sources establish notability. If I didn't carefully check which "reliable sources" for this language are truly available, then please, link some here. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. If materials about your "pet language" are official materials published by Priceton University than this is a notable source according to the Wikipedia definition. Article from MSR is an official material. There are also a lot of articles about Nemerle published in press:

http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/NemerleIntro.xml http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/nemerleMacros.xml http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/SimpleReporter.xml http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/Amplifier.xml http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/NemerleStingFormating.xml http://rsdn.ru/summary/4531.xml and so forth.

There are a lot of references in press: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Nemerle%22 Nemerle is officially supported by Mono (which I hope is enough notable for you?) Nemerle is included in several Linux distributions Nemerle is not even an academic language, it is used in industry.

All these things does render a language as notable according to Wikipedia standards.

I hope that you have good intentions in mind but what you are doing here is *vandalism*. There are a lot really *interestring* academic programming languages here which will likely fall under your "non-notable" criteria. As a result Wikipedia will loose a lot of interesting content.

I am convincing you to stop playing in this "notability" game. Otherwise we will have to report your actions as abuse - and yes, we will have a notable support for such statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorov2 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

            • Comment. Not at all convincing. Your rsdn.ru links seem to be a tutorial. Your news.google.com link references sources talking about Mono or F#, with passing mentions to Nemerle. Mono is notable, but notability is not inheritable per WP:INHERIT. I'm not sure how "included in several Linux distributions" and "not even an academic language" are arguments in favor for this article. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Christopher you aren't right. Nemerle is a new word in a computer science. Nemerle it is widely known in Russia and Poland because developed by Russian and Polish developers. Nemerle has are links from http://elibrary.ru/ - Russian index of scientific citation. User:VladD2 — VladD2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. Nemerle is one of the most promising languages. Although it is less popular than mainstream languages, it has remarkable first derivative of popularity. (I cannot explain it in English, so I have tried to translate it into math, IYKWIM.) And Nemerle seems to be far better than any other language in .NET family due to it's clarity and expressiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.58.51 (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — 109.165.58.51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
edit
  1. Nemerle MS Research
  2. Extensible Pattern Matching
  3. Mono languages
  4. Ubuntu package
  5. Debian package
  6. Gentoo ebuild

If you need more you can search for more. And my point is :

  • How the hell you can tell about programming languages notability if you really just a student, Hell how much experience about languages you can have to desire what languages should be here ?
  • So you say it's interesting only for developers and I answer. Hell, yes ! Sure programming languages is interesting for developers ? Maybe for painters ? or for 'housewifes' ? Not man. Programming languages is for programmers.
  • You say "Covering these languages on Wikipedia makes it harder to find *interesting* programming languages". So what is *interesting* programming languages for you ? Basic ? Pascal ? Oh god ! Nemerle makes it harder to find Basic for you... Poor boy , I am sorry for you !

--nCdy (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC) This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--rgpk (comment) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. None of those links are reliable sources. Random slides from a talk? A paper cited 29 times, according to Google Scholar, that isn't even about Nemerle? A directory of all the Mono-compatible languages? Free software package directories (that aren't specifically about Nemerle)? None of these are reliable, verifiable, independent coverage of the subject, and they surely do not establish notability of this language. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. You know what ? There is no point to discuss with you about it. Your answers is not so smart. So all that we can say : Your action is WRONG. And I really don't care what you gonna do, delete all other languages and keeping freaking around Wikipedia. We can not control all goddamn inadequate kids in the world.

--nCdy (talk) 9 February 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 08:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep. The language has been noted and accepted by the .NET community. Google shows about 40k search results for Nemerle, Bing about 30k. There are a lot of articles, blogs and discussions about. Are you going to claim that all of them aren't independent? Since the language is open-source and free for both commercial and non-commercial use, all facts listed in the wikipedia article ARE verifiable accordingly to the wikipedia rules. Also, again accordingly to Wikipedia rules, not each and every but only questionable articles should be attributed to a reliable, published source. I don't know why are you going to eliminate this page, but you're making an obvious mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.121.61.192 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — 78.121.61.192 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Only future will show will this language be popular or no. So we must discuss this language at as many places as possible. It will be better if more and more people will know about this language and Wikipedia can help in it. User:Dvorkinp — Dvorkinp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


  • Keep. Christopher, from what I see you are the only guy so far who wants the article on Nemerle to be deleted. A lot of people on this page already voted for keeping it alive. You are definitely not a majority here. Please stop fruitless argument and switch to more important tasks I'm sure you have. Thanks. Enerjazzer (talk) 06:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Conditional keep. Even though Christopher has produced some valid arguments for his case, I believe this article should be kept. Nemerle is one of the few actively developed languages for .NET outside Microsoft's ecosystem. There are at list two published books that talk about the language, and these are listed on the page. There are research papers published that talk about the language. The page should stay up, as the project is gaining momentum. I'd say, it should stay up for at least a couple more years to see if goes to oblivion or continues to exist. Dmitriid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]


  • Conditional delete. I really hate to step back from my usual protectionist deletion attitude, but in this case I don't want the "Christopher Monsanto, you are the only one who wants it deleted" argument to be used anymore here, along with lots of "KEEP"s from RSDN-invited Nemerle fans, who are mostly completely unaware of the Wikipedia notability policy. If this language is indeed notable, the language experts should bother to learn the notability policy and provide the sources. Taught in multiple high schools universities / discussed in reliable sources / covered by multiple printed books from independent authors (I've counted two yet, which barely fits the "multiple") / covered by articles in multiple notable printed magazines (RSDN mag fits perfectly, but it's just a single magazine, with almost every article written by the same person)? Come on Nemerle guys, find a bit more sources, improve the article and it'll stay with you forever! Improve the Wikipedia rather than go personal upon Christopher and cry for admins! Honeyman (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, may be my English is not so good but I know the difference between words "delete" and "enhance", "improve". If the article requires enhancements, there should be another tag. I think if the tag "delete" has been made with false comment such as "only question or two comments on stackoverflow", it is just provocation which is only make people angry.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So isn'it kind of blackmailing, making people to write more and more books and articles to allow them to keep their article? It is strange but it seems you are going personal yourself on Nemerle fans right now. The article is medium good. Though it is still a good playground for future improvements. Their personal attack on Christopher is an expressive result of his own ridiculous actions. Nemerle has books, articles, notable importance and also notable attention from the .net community. These sources ARE reliable. Christopher didn't answer the question about his definition of reliability. Deletion of that article is not only a violation of Wikipedia rules but also a damage to Wikipedia spirit. Voting for Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Habilis⊕ 20:59, 9 February 2011 — HabilisRus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • No, this is not any blackmailing, this is how Wikipedia works. You write an article and you prove it worths to stay, in such terms that even a Biology freshman understands that this programming article is worthy and notable. Maybe there are lots of books and articles in the wild, but the article itself barely mentions any. The sources may even be reliable, but at the moment there is bordeline little of them mentioned in the article. Maybe some people desperate to keep the article even write more and more books and articles, that would be just better for everybody, but I believe it takes quite a time to book to be published, so it may not be in time for this AfD discussion to close. But at the moment, if the community is great and the coverage is wide, I believe it wouldn't be a problem to find some more notable references and add them to the article. Keep it cool people, nobody here wants any direct harm, even to the poor victim article, people just want the Wikipedia to be a bit better. Particularly, this article to be improved to the minimal keepable level, unless deleted. Too bad it took quite a time and an AfD proposal for it to happen. Honeyman (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just look at the Boo (programming language) article. Does it need an improvement? --Habilis⊕ 04:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • A really quick search gives out this book: DSLs in Boo: Domain-Specific Languages in .NET. Somebody should add this to the references. A couple more of similar references and Boo is safe. Honeyman (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • We give to you two link to Books about Nemerle and many links to articles. For example, here (http://www.rsdn.ru/summary/4531.xml) you can find 4 article about Nemerle macro system (and here http://nemerle.org/wiki/index.php?title=Macros_-_extended_course._Part_1 theirs translation to English). Try to ask author of Boo where he get idea of macros. Further, try to compare features of Nemerle macros and Boo. Note: I has nothing against Boo. I not understand why you discriminate nemerle? VladD2 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Regarding the (assumed) idea of macros in Boo borrowed from Nemerle, that may be interesting but still does not count as a argument to establish Nemerle notability; there are well defined policies how to establish notability and what is a reliable source, and the language design inspiration is irrelevant here (nevertheless I should mention that these idea remind me Lisp macros too much to consider the macro idea unique for Nemerle). But as for the books and articles, seems I have to review these sources for their reliability (after it was mentioned below that the articles were not third-part) and count what we have now. I'd suggest to find more sources while we have time. Honeyman (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'd suggest to find more sources while we have time. You know it seems you are trolling us slightly. All you say is "I don't think this is RS" and "I suggest you to find better sources" or "This article should be improved or be deleted". When someone points you to the Boo article, stating that there are plenty of bad articles in a wiki, your answer is just a link to a book. So what? Ohh.. you know, I don't think it is reliable source. Sorry, first of all, please, read wiki notability policy and find some better academical sources... while you still have time. Ha-ha.
                • You know, there is no way to persuade a person if he is biased. And you are. Since when you got the right to decide that all the existing books and articles are not RS? Your polemic with Monsanto about publishers are quite strange. You shouldn't play reliability game on your own personal perception of publishers, sites or articles. If you and Christopher believe that specific magazines, sites, MSDN articles and other things aren't notable and on the other hand books of a specific publisher are notable, so it is your own personal issue. You are just biasing wiki rules for our own purposes. More of that, you are harming people removing encyclopedic data about notable things. Shame on you.--Habilis⊕ 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It seems that most people who participate in the discussion on the “keep Nemerle article” side do not properly understand the roles of AfD participants. As long as the AfD is opened, you should not persuade myself, or Christopher, or any other “delete” voters: they won't perform the actual deletion. It is the closing admin who'll judge the discussion in about a week after opening, and it is the strength of the arguments rather than their amount or involved emotions what matters. It is likely that most of the people voting for delete do not want this article be deleted (for example, that's my case). What they do want indeed, is to find out whether in fact it is notable enough or not to stay; AfD time is the perfect time to all the people involved to realize it, find the proofs for their points and try to make the article better while there is the time before the closing admin comes. It is pretty easy to understand whether the article is notable or not, just apply the procedure using the Wikipedia rules. One does not have to “believe” into notability, the notability is easily calculable. Do you believe into the fact that the number 2147483647 is prime? you don't have to, just apply the usual procedure of primality check. The same with the subject notability and the sources reliability: just apply the usual procedure. Everyone can do that, that's very simple: Chris can do that, I can do that, you can do that before posting yet another “reliable source candidate”. The closing admin also can do that. Do you think that if you post an unreliable source, and neither Chris not me warn about its unreliability, the admin won't notice it themselves? No, the admin will likely be smart enough to spot it themselves, and reject the source. Do you want the article be deleted because it has three unreliable sources, the Nemerle-keepers relaxed and considered that's enough for it to stay (and stopped looking for more better sources), but the closing admin thinks otherwise? No you don't. Me don't. Nobody here don't. Honeyman (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The only one person who crying for admins right here is Christopher itself. What are you talking about? BTW, in case of your awareness about Wikipedia notability policy, can you give us an exactly definition of "reliable source" term? Christopher didn't, although we asked him directly :xz:--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I recall there was a mention of “abuse report” above while I believe no reasonably experienced Wikipedia editor ever considers tidying up the articles and keeping the Wikipedia clean a “vandalism”. Honeyman (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Christopher. As all we are know, you have got an own project "Frenetic" - the programming language which built on top of functional-reactive paradigm as well, as Nemerle supports it 'inter alia'. So, our project is directly concurent to yours one. This is the fact and it's confirming by such notable sources as your web profiles. In my opinion, your destructive activity is looks like very shabby act directed against our project as concurent product. Can you prove an independency and sincerity of your intensions via reliable sources with supporting evidences? Or may be you just pursue one's own interests? Seems like this, unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochetkov.vladimir (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Kochetkov.vladimir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Mentioning “concurrent” (while probably meaning “competitive”), you make it think that Nemerle is a priced commercial system. I'd take back your words at your place, as the Wikipedia notability requirements for the commercial products/companies are tightier than for the free/opensource systems. Which one of the two definitions better fits Nemerle? (it is not clear from the article, and while you are here you could probably make the world better and mention in the article whether it is free and/or opensourced). Also, you are mentioning the functional-reactive paradigm, but while were are discussing the Nemerle article here rather than the pet projects of some Wikipedia editor, you should probably notice that the article doesn't mention in any way that Nemerle supports functional-reactive paradigm, I hope you understand what I mean… As you've mentioned Nemerle as “our project”, I assume you are likely a Nemerle expert who could really help to improve the article rather than chit-chat on the AfD page. The votes won't help the article to keep, the article improvement will. Honeyman (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Christopher. I'm afraid I have to raise a question about your ban due to vandalism and efforts to discredit the Wikipedia Policies in case you can't explain your activities reason and prove good faith right now.--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems Christopher is discriminating Nemerle purely based on its visibility in English speaking sources. Nemerle is mostly developed in Russia/Poland, so it would be worthwhile for somebody with Russian language knowledge to check notability of Nemerle, which could then be easily assured. As can be seen from responses here, it's a very well-known and active project in Russian/Polish CS academic and enthusiast community. The language needs more English exposure not less and what you are doing runs very much against the stated goals of Wikipedia project. --Novitk (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Novitk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Since the invention of Google Translate, the Russian sources are acceptable in the English Wikipedia if they are reliable at all (proven during a number of other AfD discussions). For example, the RSDN Magazine articles (which are already mentioned in the article now) quite fit the definition. The only problem at the moment is the amount of sources. Why all the Nemerle fanboys keep coming here and writing unsupported "keeps", while finding a dozen of other reliable articles/books would close the topic forever? If the language is indeed notable, it wouldn't be long to find them. Or is it? Honeyman (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The language is a darling of RSDN (probably #1 CS/IT site in Russia) with a forum dedicated solely to its development and evangelism. It's a practical language at the early stages of development, not a scientific toy. While the formal sources are not numerous, please be aware that the language changed owners/maintainer recently. I would also think the current interest (forum posts and commits) and the weight of the current maintainers (RSDN) should give a clear indication of notability. --Novitk (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being a pet project for a huge CS/IT site, having a personal forum, changing the maintainers frequently, having a 7-digit number of commits and even more of forum posts, containing the interesting and unique language features, giving two millions results on Google lookup for “$insertnamehere$ programming language”, being so promising to expect a first place in TIOBE language rating in a couple of years... I have to remind that neither of this seriously counts for the Wikipedia notability. Assuming a good faith in all the voters coming here and giving these as arguments to “keep”, I truly believe that all of them have read the Wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:NOTE, also maybe WP:NSOFT though one need to pay attention to the difference between the official guideline and the unofficial essay) before voting here, because all the high-profile developers are able to find and investigate the information to defend their viewpoint themselves, so assuming a good faith I believe that all of the irrelevant arguments to protect Nemerle notability which are made by these people after they've read the documents are made because they… err… probably… forgot some of the details. In any case, I would like to mention the WP:NOTE and WP:NSOFT again, together with the WP:AFDEQ and WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD to any people who needs to refresh their knowledge in the Wikipedia processes. Honeyman (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can also mention Nemerle 2 project which is a successor of Nemerle. So Nemerle language is a thriving one. --Habilis⊕ 03:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article definitely has to stay in Wiki. Nemerle is the most advanced new generation programming language of today, and I am sure it will be the first one that will implement the relatively simple way to develop custom DSLs. People should know about Nemerle and I think Wiki is the most appropriate place for that. It seems to me that you are a programmer. However I think it is strange that you are working on your own “secret” programming language, but you do not understand the importance of what Nemerle is. Chris, I can’t bring myself to believe that you would act in such a primitive way for the sake of competition. For your sake, I hope that the deletion of the article will not be the most “notable” contribution in your life that you will make for programming languages. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — NoAccountNameAvailable (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • RSDN Magazine articles should not count as independent reliable sources as all of them are written by the person who is both the magazine editor and the Nemerle key developer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.41.211 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By your logic MSDN Magazine should not be considered as a reliable source for any Microsoft products. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely they should not be, they are not independent of the subject or third-party. And this is not "my logic" but the well-defined Wikipedia policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.41.211 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of the books and articles about new languages are written by authors or developers of the languages. Regarding the RSDN Magazine, the magazine is an official Russian scientific magazine. It has an editorial board with many experts (professors, PhDs, aspirants, MS MVPs, and professional programmers). RSDN is the biggest Russian community of software developers. So your statements are harmful to RSDN’s reputation and should be considered defamatory. VladD2 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability is not inheritable -- just because a professor says the word "Nemerle" in a sentence does not mean Nemerle is notable. Come on, this is an interview about *Scala*, not Nemerle. Why on earth would this source establish notability for Nemerle? Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So, what sources do we have at the moment in the article?
1. RSDN Magazine publications. They are almost perfect for the reliable sources, but seems they are indeed not third-party/independent, as required for the reliable source: they are written by (seems) User:VladD2 who is both a developer for Nemerle integration into Visual Studio (though maybe not the "key Nemerle developer", as suggested above) and the technical editor of the magazine. One article is written by a separate person but the fact that one of the developers is the editor of the magazine really spoils the whole party.
Comment. I'm not author of Nemerle. I find this project in 2006 and write many articles about it. Also articles for RSDN Magazine pass to editorial board which has many experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree. According to this logic, if I am an editor of a reliable source and I make a contribution to something I like, then my source automatically becomes unreliable. There is something wrong here. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm afraid your disagreement with the official Wikipedia “third party” requirement does not matter here, for the reasons explained in WP:THIRDPARTY and WP:SPS. But I can give you a contrary example to let you better understand why this requirement is so important. According to your logic, if a full-time columnist in a very popular magazine (say, russian Forbes) and at the same time a chief editor in another popular magazine (say, Afisha-Eda) launches up his own restaurant (say, Ragout) and starts to mention it in every his article in the magazine he contributes to, this restaurant automatically should be considered notable. I should have used some disclaimer like the notorious lie-to-me-ous “* The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event” before my example, but for some reason I decided to omit it. Come on, use the logic of the Nemerle defenders and say, should the Wikipedia have an article on that Ragout restaurant or not? Why? It is covered in multiple articles, it is so blogged about (by that chief editor), many people mention it on the Ragout page on Facebook… Honeyman (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Ml Programming Language Family: Ml, Standard Ml, Objective Caml, Mythryl, F Sharp, Nemerle, Alice, Standard Ml of New Jersey, Concurrent Ml" paperback. Bordeline good, cause being a 100-page book covering 10 different languages leads to simple math expression with an unpleasant conclusion.
3. "Nemerle", Betascript Publishing. Perfect source, need more this good ones!
4. MS Research articles. One barely mentions Nemerle, and another is the document from the 2005 workshop. There are lots of workshops, public meetings and conferences going all over the world under the patronage of various major companies, so not every project honored to be represented on one worths attention. Does Deluux startup worths its own Wikipedia page? — but this project was among the ten ones selected by the famous Y Combinator business incubator in 2007. Does (LAX) Logilab Appengine eXtension worths a page? — there was a lecture on it during EuroPython 2008. I hope you get my point.
In total, at the moment we have a single good independent book and 10 pages in another one, and a bunch of articles which are not independent. Nemerle people, if this is all what we have at the moment, why are you trying to impress somebody by the votecount on this page, by the words how great and popular this language is, by the size of the community and other irrelevant stuff, while you should be looking for real good sources instead? If the language is so objectively popular as you assert, why you just don't find a dozen more sources and mention them here? Come on, check the printed "Xakep" magazine, check fprog.ru, check Computerra (while it was printed), check Murzilka (maybe it did have an issue fully dedicated to the Nemerle macro programming, dunno). There should be something, I cannot believe that the language with so fuzz inside the community has so little coverage outside. Honeyman (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Xakep" magazine? You joke? It's magazine for very young hooligan. Computerra: http://www.computerra.ru/offline/2007/676/309151/, http://www.google.ru/search?q=site:computerra.ru+Nemerle&hl=ru&prmd=ivns&filter=0 fprog.ru for the time present is not a real magazine. But it' good idea. I think fprog.ru won't refuse the publication about Nemerle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VladD2 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... fprog.ru: http://www.google.ru/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site:http://fprog.ru+Nemerle VladD2 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VladD2, can you please have a glance at the policies/essays I've mentioned above (WP:NOTE, WP:NSOFT, WP:AFDEQ, WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD, maybe WP:RELIABLE cause it is referred anyway) before further suggesting the various links as the notability prove? This will help you understand why there is no need to mention the articles with just the passing reference to the subject, and you'll be able to find out what is needed to help the article and resolve its current issues. This is not a democratic vote, neither a “mention-as-many-occasional-references-as-you-can” competition, nor a “we are important! — no you are not important!” quarrel, this is the quest for the notable sources. As you are the one of the persons most knowledgeable in the topic, your help to find such sources would be most appreciated. (PS I am really curious why there is still no good article on Nemerle in FProg, as this is a real though-a-bit-twenty-firstish-regarding-publication-form magazine, having ISSN 2075-8456). Honeyman (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://fprog.ru/2009/issue2/roman-dushkin-algebraic-data-types/ ? From the point of view of audience it is no has sense. Most of readers of FProg also read RSDN. I think, you know it. But I we can publish articles and in FProg. What will it change?
  • Comment. I appreciate you taking the time to make this a reasonable discussion, Honeyman. However, as another commenter pointed out, Books LLC titles are reprints of Wikipedia articles, so they are never acceptable as a source. Betascript publishing also sells Wikipedia articles -- every book by them has the authors "Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, Susan F. Marseken, Mariam T. Tennoe and Susan F. Henssonow". They do not peer-review or edit external submissions (not even proofreading). Betascript is an alt. name for VDM publishing -- "VDM's publishing methods have received criticism for the soliciting of manuscripts from thousands of individuals, for providing non-notable authors with the appearance of a peer-reviewed publishing history, for benefiting from the free contributions of online volunteers, and for insufficiently disclosing the free nature of their content." "American writer Victoria Strauss characterized VDM Publishing as "an academic author mill"." In other words, neither of the books listed are acceptable as even sources to Wikipedia articles, let alone evidence of their notability. I don't think Nemerle has a *single* reliable source to back it up, let alone the multiple, independent, reliable sources necessary to establish notability. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christopher, what you so worry? Your opinion here have already heard. I think that it is necessary to be very prejudiced or not to go into details of question to agree with you. VladD2 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christopher, thanks for your input. I cannot either agree or disagree with your comments on Books LLC and Betascript, as I have no information about it. Nevertheless, it's the duty of the admin closing the AfD to judge them. I'm afraid most of Nemerle fans here do not get they shouldn't impress us with their persuasion attempts, they should impress the closing admin with the page contents, and personally myself is desperately trying to help them to pre-evaluate their page contribution before the admin decision, rather than insulting their language, themselves, the whole RSDN magazine team and the site community, all the Russian software developers, and the whole humanity on the world.
The best way for the Nemerle fans to treat this AfD is… like a commit into the software repository adding a useful feature but introducing a critical regression issue. You don't blame or consider “prejudiced” the tester who spotted the regression (yourself), you don't try to persuade the release manager (closing admin) to leave this commit as is, you don't assume a person (myself) reviewing your fix is trying to hinder the progress. No insults, no prejudices, no emotions, just a typical technical well-defined process: there is the issue in your commit; you either fix it or rollback the commit, period. Honeyman (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lets some people prove that they are not camels because some others do not believe them. That what makes people angry. Especially after all of these links/articles/books/communities are provided. A lot of articles are not notable by people at all and a lot of think that not in the articles are really notable. IMHO, it is always a set of factors. May be one article is not notable, stackoverflow is not reliable but >100 stackoverflow, several articles, communities, books, references and everything else together ARE NOTABLE. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP just because it hasn't been published academically, or because the article is low quality doesn't meet notability guidelines. With this said, the article needs work, regardless, my vote to keep in the hope that this AFD pushes someone to expand. Trelane (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While well noticed by those with connection to the subject and a small population of enthusiastic fans (who seem to have !voted early and often here), the Nemerle topic has not been noticed to a significant degree by independent sources. The reliable source material I found on Nemerle is: March 16, 2004: "US computer software giant Microsoft awarded Polish students from the IT Institute of Wroclaw University a research grant worth EUR 25,000. The students will work on the creation of the new programming language Nemerle." and October 2, 2007 "Applications created for .net can be modified and run on Linux, Windows, Solaris and other versions of Unix, and Mac OS X. Supported languages include C#, Java, Boo, Nemerle, Visual Basic.NET, Python, JavaScript, Oberon, PHP and Object Pascal. Mono also supports PostgreSQL, MySQL, Firebird, Sybase ASE, IBM DB2, SQLite, SQL Server and Oracle." That is not enought reliable source material from which to maintain a stand alone article. Delete as failing WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some another sources

edit

Scientific (non-RSDN) articles which bases at Nemerle, or uses it/researches arround it, or have a references to it:

  1. Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming (PDF)
  2. E-matching for Fun and Profit (PDF) (Fx7 project, mentioned in article was moved here)
  3. Rocket-fast proof checking for SMT solvers (PDF)
  4. Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories (PDF)
  5. Evolving a DSL Implementation (PDF)
  6. An ECMAScript Compiler for the .NET Framework Isn't freely avaiable (PDF presentation that can be found is not an article itself), but references Nemerle (check the "References" tab at ACM article's page).
  7. Efficient E-Matching for SMT Solvers (PDF)
  8. Using Dynamic Symbolic Execution to Improve Deductive Verification Isn't freely avaiable, but references Nemerle (check the "References" tab at ACM article's page).
  9. Comparative Study of DSL Tools (PDF)
  10. Edit and Verify (PDF)
  11. Fast Quantifier Reasoning With Lazy Proof Explication (PDF)

Some significant projects, written in Nemerle.

  1. Russian Mathematics Equation Search Engine and it's international interface
  2. Ready to use Ruby On Rails derriviative for .NET platform

--Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't have time to check all the sources as I don't have the ACM subscription to access the articles directly from the search, but for now I've found the first article Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming freely available at the author's page (Laurence Tratt) and it seems good to me: nontrivial mention, the source seems pretty much reliable, 9 citations. Finally we've got something! Will try to check the other sources as well. Honeyman (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the authors of E-matching for Fun and Profit, Michał Moskal, is listed among the early Nemerle contributors on the Nemerle.org authors list, a pity. He is also the sole author of Rocket-fast proof checking for SMT solvers.
Solving quantified verification conditions using satisfiability modulo theories is available here, Nemerle language itself is not mentioned at all (though a link to the http://nemerle.org/malekith/smt/en.html is given as an example of another SMT solver). Just a trivial mention.
Evolving a DSL Implementation is yet another source from Laurence Tratt, see his page, there is a paragraph on Nemerle macro system.
The contents of the An ECMAScript compiler for the .NET framework article seem unavailable in the internet, the only available PDF contains the slides from the presentation, which does not mention Nemerle at all.
Efficient E-Matching for SMT Solvers is available here but it contains just a link to the SMT-related document hosted on the nemerle.org site, considering that a trivial mention again.
Using Dynamic Symbolic Execution to Improve Deductive Verification, yet another proceeding from a workshop available at Microsoft Research. The only mention of Nemerle is among the references, yet another link to the nemerle.org hosted document. Just a trivial mention.
I have nothing to say about the "significant projects written on Nemerle", as I am not aware of their notability or significance, and the links given here do not do the third-party establishment of their relation to Nemerle. Is there maybe any press-release in some reliable news source which informs about these projects and establishes their relation to Nemerle?
In total, we have one (or two, though the second one is vague) seems-to-me-reliable source from the single author. Can somebody add the reference to Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming PDF to the page? Still quite a little, but today is much much better than yesterday (today we probably have a 1 good source, yesterday we had 0, do the math :) ). Honeyman (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help anyway. I have been added direct links to PDF's and yet another two sources --Kochetkov.vladimir (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article has no inline citations. Kochetkov.vladimir lists a number of publications (thanks!), the next step would be to go through the publications, look at what is written about Nemerle and update the article with that information. Also, the sources should be reviewed for their Impact Factor and the number of citations. If any of them are peer reviewed, then those citations would have more weight. I looked at Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming and it has a few paragraphs about Nemerle. The only Nemerle specific citation in that paper is the website http://nemerle.org/metaprogramming, which is not a strong citation. Google Scholar at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Domain+specific+language+implementation+via+compile-time+meta-programming&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart indicates 22 citations, but Google Scholar's citation count is not to be trusted. Citeseer has 8 citations, 5 self at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.147.472 . ACM has 22 citations at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1391958 . The journal is the ACM Trans. Prog. Lang. Syst, which is presumably ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS). I'm not sure about this journal, more research would be necessary, it may have a low impact factor as it does not have a wikipedia page, which indicates that the journal itself is not notable.
I looked into the two books and the Barnes and Nobel Page for Nemerle says it is a book published by Betascript and that the book contains material from Wikipedia. The other book is also suspect. Does anyone have either book and can they compare the information about Nemerle with Wikipedia? These days anyone can publish a book, so books are losing their influence in notability discussions.
Also, I'd like to caution people about personal attacks. A person called for a discussion about deletion about this article. The article could use some work, especially with regard to citations. Let's assume good faith and try to improve the article. I'd happily consider upgrading my weak delete to a keep if there were inline citations. I believe that the person who called for deletion would be happier if we found publications that had more than 22 citations, so looking over the other citations could yield a citation that has more citations. However, remember that merely adding the citation is not really sufficient, someone needs to read the paper and update the article with facts that are backed up by the citations Cxbrx (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I realize that there is a Wikipedia procedure about what it calls 'notability'. I wonder if it makes any sense and if what Wikipaedia calls 'notability' has something to do with notability. I am a non-.Net developer in a large Russian IT-company, in no way related to Nemerle. I recently conducted a tiny poll among my nearest colleagues - only those of them who are non-.Net developers like myself. More than 3/4 of them had at least heard about Nemerle, and many even named some of its features. I am confident that if I had polled my .Net-colleagues as well, I'd have got nearly everyone having at least heard about it. Thus Nemerle is, as a matter of the fact, noted by a large share of people in relevant industry who are not involved in the project. How come it is noted while not notable?
This reminds me of a classical Russian joke about a teacher telling little Vovochka that he shouldn't say 'ass' because there is no such word. 'How come' - replies Vovochka - 'that there is ass itself, but no word for it?'--77.232.15.45 (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I simply don't see enough coverage in reliable sources. You can't win by creating tons of single-purpose accounts and voting "keep". Nyttend (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just cos it makes a change ;) - no, but seriously, as Christopher has calmly pointed out over and over again (you must have the patience of a saint!), there are no reliable sources to prove notability. GiantSnowman 18:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From my review of the discussion only, the only issue that is less reliably referenced to independent, peer reviewed, sources than the programming language are the opinions expressed upon the character and motivations of the proposer. If any of the accounts above who have indulged their lack of knowledge of Wikipedia etiquette in this manner continue to do so, I shall be revoking their editing privileges. If you are unable to reference the reliable sources correctly noted by Christopher Monsanto as necessary, then it would be preferable that you did not comment. I trust any closing admin will note the lack of specific responses to the basis for this nomination, the paucity of reliable sources providing notability for the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the subject of the article does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:N includes this: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Further, it may well be the case that Nemerle is a programming language of huge potential, as a number of commenters above have suggested, that will someday be recognised by such coverage. However, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to predict that, nor is it the purpose of Wikipedia to promote Nemerle (or any other programming language) so that more people find out about it (however noble a cause that may be), as has been suggested by at least one commenter above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2011 (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/Nemerle&oldid=1110107055"