I find it kind of strange just how dedicated "Artem Karimov" is to getting this page deleted.<p>In addition, the rule that's quoted, "Notability is inherited", is a bit strange - people are notable because of things they do. For example, I doubt that J.K. Rowling would be considered "notable" if it wasn't for the fact that she created Harry Potter. I fail to see why the same argument can't be applied here.<p>However, I shall end with a disclaimer: I don't edit Wikipedia at all, and I'm sure there are nuances that I'm missing. Still strange, though.
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.<p>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 <i>potentially</i> notable, but none are when they're shotgunned at the reader.<p>Of the sources there, <i>Code Quarterly</i> might qualify as a respectable publication, if it takes off -- it <i>too</i> is new.<p>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, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Poole" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Poole</a> redirected to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan</a> 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.
I have to admit being somewhat surprised to find a concise, interesting debate where neither side is being particularly dumb or unreasonable.<p>Of course by the time someone on HN reads this and follows the link, this may have changed.
Posting things like this is frowned upon by WP:CANVAS[1] and I would wager is generally counter-productive to actually saving an article. The goal of these discussions is to determine if there is consensus[2] that the article should be deleted because of the English Wikipedia's policies[3]. Having a bunch of people that are not familiar with how things work on en.wiki bring very little light, but a lot of heat and generally are just ignored by the closer of the discussion.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANVAS" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANVAS</a><p>[2] Wikipedia has a somewhat odd definition of this and it varies greatly on what process/discussion is taking place and whomever ends up making the decision. Ostensibly, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus</a> describes it, but nailing what it really means in practice is much more difficult.<p>[3] There are far too many to list. However, two of the most important ideas are that Wikipedia neutrally presents what other citable, good sources say.