Have you tried discussing the issue nicely on the talk (Diskussion) page? There hasn't been any talk in German, which is very strange for an article that has been marked for deletion.

One problem that I see is that, generally, wikipedians should not be writing about their own stuff. I'm sure it happens more frequently in other areas that don't have pedants running the show, but I think it is important for people to write the article like an encyclopedia article.

Wikipedia can be annoying in this way because there are some editors who are full of themselves and they don't like appeals. But there is a lot of software on there that is of minimal notability but the articles are not marked for deletion.

It might be true that it would be better to put picolisp in another article, but I don't think one exists that is good for it. Perhaps it could be merged into an article about various lisp implementations such as BEE Lisp and the like, making Picolisp and BEE Lisp a redirection to these pages.

(I'm just picking on BEE Lisp because it is referenced from the lisp page and doesn't seem very notable to me.)


On 11 Jan 2010, at 1:49 AM, Alexander Burger wrote:

Hi Henrik,

So in the spirit of promoting the language I made the reply into its own
post on my blog:

Thanks Henrik!

When it comes to secondary sources and references and such I propose a new section in the Wikipedia article called something like "Impact" with a link

At the moment I don't want to any further changes. Last week I had added two references to the German version (which started the trouble), one to
your prodevtips, and one to an article in the renowned German c't
magazine, but they were immediately removed (reverted).

But thank you very much for your input!

- Alex


Reply via email to