Link Details

This is ridiculous. Every opinion to keep the article had the same response - "this does not prove the language's notability".

No-one proved it isn't notable, but still it was deleted (3 times). The editors who deleted it aren't in a position to judge it's notability.

Now wikipedia is full of broken links leading to Nemerle. I wonder if the same editors will tidy up the mess they've created.

This is a perfect example of why I don't contribute to wikipedia.

That's kind of a bass-ackwards reason to not contribute to Wikipedia; if you care so much wouldn't you *want* to contribute in a way more meaningful than a comment on DZ?

Wouldn't it have made more sense to say something like "Now that Nemerle is nearing its 1.0 release, and because it's a language that encompasses several current programming language trends, and because it's on a modern platform, deleting the Wikipedia page at this time seems like a bad idea", but in a place that might actually *matter* to the larger discussion (like on Wikipedia)?

True, but the majority of well thought out arguments on Wikipedia to keep the article have been dismissed as not proving notability. If I'm going to help create / improve a programming article I prefer to contribute where it won't disappear overnight.

These programming languages are also up for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_(programming_language)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_(programming_language)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_(programming_language)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido_(programming_language)

I'm not arguing that the articles should (or should not) be deleted [1]. I'm saying if you *actually* care, then *this* isn't the best forum--Wikipedia is, whether or not you're successful.

[1] I *don't* think they should be deleted, but I understand why they might be nominated for deletion. I just don't see any real purpose behind deleting them.

They also deleted the article I wrote on Nimrod.
Indeed, this one isn't really notable (yet?), but it is still upsetting. Somehow, I feel that programming languages deserve having their modest page in the encyclopaedia, at least for research and history reasons (Aikido dates back to 2003 at least).
I don't know what they fear. Explosion of articles? When you see the number of articles on songs (indeed, notables, but yet), you wonder...

Note: without being an expert, I know at least by name Joy, Pure and Nemerle. Notability is quite a relative concept.

on wikipedia there is an article about Brainfuck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck which is totally unuseful language but not for this one.
just to be clear i've never used Nemerle but now i'm curious what it is about

BrainFuck pretty well know useless language. That makes it notable :D

Scandalous!

As a 27 year veteran of the software development industry I have observed a large number of prima donnas, self-proclaimed geniuses who know what's best for all of us. Sadly the industry tends to idolize and humor them when instead it should give them the slap down they roundly deserve for such obnoxious and overbearing behavior. These individuals can be identified by a pattern of inserting themselves into other groups' activities and then making grand proclamations or attempts to change the scope of the project with little or no clearly articulated rationalization or vision. This appears to be yet another case of a prima donna attack an otherwise rational project. Some things just don't change.
,

Wikipedia needs some adult supervision!

I looked at the discussions at Wikipedia, and I am surprised the supporters of Nemerle weren't all kicked out. Their arguments were full of emotional personal attacks.

And I agree. Not that they should be kicked out but yes there was lot of emotion rather then concrete steps to rectify and prove notability.

Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia
Up to now "Free" meant "free as in freedom", does it now mean only "free like a beer"?

Shurgs - wikipedia always had the notable concept. They got a pretty definite ask for something to qualify as notable & popularity isn't one of it. Same kind of reason that keeps Quarts (http://www.quartz-scheduler.org/) out of wikipedia! While these particular example seem to show why this is problem, considering the scope and scale of wikipedia its pretty sensible! Heck I got my 10 different web-sides ... doesn't make me notable does it!