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
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:
So in the spirit of promoting the language I made the reply into
post on my blog:
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
two references to the German version (which started the trouble),
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!