Clojure is new. Hickey's status as the designer of a major and taken-seriously programming language is new. My knowledge of Rich Hickey is itself new -- I start

Clojure is new. Hickey's status as the designer of a major and taken-seriously programming language is new. My knowledge of Rich Hickey is itself new -- I started seeing articles about the guy about a year ago. New means that most of the things that will eventually be written about Hickey and Clojure have not yet been written. Clojure has a future, but Wikipedia is about the present. The current Wikipedia article on Rich Hickey doesn't actually tell me a whole lot about him. He invented Clojure, he's a software developer (logical consequence of the preceding), he "has worked on scheduling systems, broadcast automation, audio analysis and fingerprinting, database design, yield management, exit poll systems, and machine listening." -- where? how? with whom? All of these are potentially notable, but none are when they're shotgunned at the reader. Of the sources there, Code Quarterly might qualify as a respectable publication, if it takes off -- it too is new. Keep in mind that, say, moot, inventor of 4chan (more famous than Clojure) didn't have his own Wikipedia article until he started Canvas. Until as recently as June 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Poole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Poole redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan and it was only moot's ascendance as an entrepreneur which changed that. Wikipedia notability relies on secondary source coverage, and secondary source coverage requires time to occur.