Rich Hickey's Wikipedia page nominated for deletion

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.

Can someone explain the rationale behind Wikipedia deletionists? I don't understand their motives.

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.