Talk:Mirah (programming language)

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 July 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

Mirah was Duby, which has been covered and is being used by real users today

The page was nominated for deletion due to lack of notability. However, this may simply be because the language has had a name change recently. It used to be called Duby, and there are more references available online to that name than to "Mirah". Here are a few to start, a mix of blogs and articles:

It's being used by a few projects already, including:

http://github.com/thbar/opaz-plugdk/tree/master/plugins/
http://code.google.com/p/appengine-jruby/source/browse/appengine-rack/src/com/google/appengine/jruby/rack.duby (the main servlet logic for the JRuby tools for Google AppEngine)

I have presented it at several conferences, some of which have videos online. One such presentation from RubyConf 2009 is listed on the http://mirah.org front page.

The current disambiguation page at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Duby also references a non-existent page for Duby, so someone else felt it important to at least do that much.

It may be interesting to point out that "joke" programming languages that have literally zero users (like Whitespace (programming language) have had pages on Wikipedia for some time. Mirah is actually useful and being used :)

I'm not trying to argue that Mirah is *especially* notable, but with an active userbase, production apps, third-party bloggers, and more presentations, articles, and potentially a book in the making, it seems like it's at least notable *enough* to be included on Wikipedia. Is there more information I can provide? Headius (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references above do not appear to meet the criteria for reliable sources, blogs generally are not acceptable sources. The only exception being professional blogs that are supported by established journalists (such as reporters blogs from established magazines, newspapers, etc.) None of these appear to fit any of these definitions.

The existence of the Whitespace (programming language) article really doesn't enter into the discussion here. Unless more 3rd party reliable sources covering this language (including something that mentions the name change), the article is in danger of being deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debate to "keep" is over?

Since the decision was made to keep this article, can we perhaps remove the banner stating that the article needs to be reviewed? It has been edited by others since the debate started, and there are now several additional sources discussing the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.97.173.164 (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, previous comment was mine and I forgot to sign it. Headius (talk)