chrismonsanto

34 ms·

301.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
Hey, come on. I thought in many cases my nominations DID make sense -- most of the languages I nominated had neighborhood-of-zero information available about them on the web, and some of them were blatant advertising. Alice ML and Nemerle w
302.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
Of course I've done a Google Scholar search for Alice ML. There is roughly one admissible source -- "Through the looking glass" in Trends in Functional Programming. Small workshop paper, 12 citations according to CiteSeer. Doesn't show up i
303.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
Perhaps, but no one has come forth and developed one. But what would such a UI look like? Would it filter based on user-given notability criteria?
304.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
But I didn't nominate Factor for deletion...
305.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
So many people create pet programming languages and add them to Wikipedia that the PL lists and categories are essentially useless. Most of the languages I propose for deletion have almost no information available about them, and therefore,
306.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
It takes me but a few minutes to figure out whether I am going to nominate an article for deletion. A single hit that looks like it might possibly be a reliable source and I'm outta there. In other words, the articles I am proposing for d
307.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
It's not that their work doesn't "count" in the more general sense of the word, it's that their work has not had enough impact at the moment to establish the notability of the topic. I'm sure the researchers in question did fine work, and
308.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
I would love to do that! The problem is that for the articles I nominated, no citations exist :(
309.
by chrismonsanto 16y ago
No, of course I know that :( The problem was that the papers mentioned were either 1) not about the subject in question or 2) not cited enough to count. Hopefully your professors also drummed into you that anyone can write a paper and send