As a reader thank god not everything that has grabbed the attention of social media gets an article.
There is also virtually no attention in these comments to the content of TFA, e.g.,
> the entire point of this article is to counter the social media persona where dunking by performative disinterest and uncuriosity are a virtue and rewarded by engagement and short-term reward structures.
Anyway, the Wikipedia article was deleted -- you won. People are still entitled to think that it was a mistake and to say why.
Are you though? Like this seems like hobby project that hasn't really generated much discussion or interest in the broader programming language community, and practically speaking doesn't seem to have seen much use as a systems programming language (a single vfx package isn't really that impressive).
People seem to get offended by the notion that this language is obscure and hasn't generated much interest, and yet they don't seem to offer any counter examples.
Yes ... read the other comments and TFA that you have completely ignored. And I wouldn't have said that I was talking about that if I weren't talking about that.
> People seem to get offended by the notion that this language is obscure and hasn't generated much interest
Nonsense.
> and yet they don't seem to offer any counter examples.
Nonsense. (These statements individually and together are literally incoherent.)
The bad faith here is tiresome. Virtually no one has even read TFA, which is actually a defense of Wikipedia and devolves into an attack on Ginger Bill for following right wingers on Twitter. (And I'm no fan of those people, to say the least, but they have nothing to do with the notability of Odin.)
If a programming language is widely used in production then sourcing an article with secondary sources ought to be trivial. But the appropriate content for primary information and original research for a language.. is the language's website.
Yes, but that implies filtering on all things that are false. And in this day and age, filtering truth is a very hard thing to do, so instead they set the bar a little higher at “a reputable source checked that it is indeed true”. As a result, there's plenty of things that are both true and well known to plenty of people that aren't on Wikipedia, but that's fine, and encyclopedia doesn't need to be exhaustive to be useful.
But on the flip side, if they didn't, it would soon be filled by tons of made up things fabricated for marketing reasons.
> As a reader thank god not everything that has grabbed the attention of social media gets an article.
...
> what I want doesn't matter for an encyclopedia.
What I said isn't bad faith, that's literally not how encyclopedias work. The Encyclopedia Britannica which comes in at a frugal 120k entries doesn't add new ones because you yell at the manager long enough, they choose what to add.
Encyclopedias are not consumer or user driven but curator driven. It's not want or popularity that determines inclusion, it's judgement by trusted authors and maintainers that something meets the quality standards and relevance. It's not reddit, there's no upvotes or downvotes. I know that's difficult to understand in an age where everyone thinks they're right because they yell loud enough.
> What I said isn't bad faith, that's literally not how encyclopedias work.
Changing the subject is yet more bad faith ... what I called bad faith wasn't anything about how encyclopedias work, it was about an evasive rhetorical move.
> it's judgement by trusted authors and maintainers that something meets the quality standards and relevance
That's quite an admission and contradicts other claims on this page that WP's notability guidelines are objective. And neither quality standards nor relevance are the same as notability -- it's almost as if this person has no idea what he's talking about and is simply doing apologetics for a position that he's planted his flag on.
> It's not reddit, there's no upvotes or downvotes.
Silly bad faith strawman. The complaints from people like Ginger Bill (which I don't necessarily endorse or agree with) are about gatekeeping, and the previous comment gave that away.
> I know that's difficult to understand in an age where everyone thinks they're right because they yell loud enough.
Bad faith smug hypocritical virtue signaling.