Significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. The page was created by one of the users of the language. Since then the language has been starred and followed by other developers on github, a few side-projects have been started on github[1] and bitbucket[2], and mentioned in a number of other forums/blogs[3][4][5][6][7][8] in addition to my own blog[9] and usergroup[10] which now has around 50 members, meetup groups[11][12], reddit posts[13] and multiple demos have been put together by the community [14][15]. If you read some of the posts on our mailing list, you will notice a few recent newcomers wishing to use RapydScript for their startups/company but afraid to due to lack of awareness. This is precisely why I want to recreate the article to encourage them to use the language. As you can see from the above blog links, RapydScript often gets mentioned as a superior alternative to Skulpt/Brython/Pyjamas in the comments by the few members who already use it. This language has been around for over a year, and is not going anywhere (I have recently ported the compiler to be written in the same language so the compiler is now officially self-hosting. However, inability to get the word out there is really hurting the adoption.
The original admin who has deleted the page no longer contributes to wikipedia, which is why I'm using this method instead of contacting him directly.
Wouldn't posts made by other users conform to the secondary sources requirement or is the project out of luck until it gets popular media coverage? I'm not completely sure what's being questioned here, the existence of the project? Atsepkov (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about scripting languages, have no experience, qualifications etc. I can happily put up a forum post, blog entry etc. and encourage all my friends to do so. Do you think that indicates any sort of real world interest (notability) ?. Or take it a step further, I can do that and get my friends in doing that to say "rapydscript is the biggest pile of #!$% I've ever experienced" - do you think that should count as a reliable source and should be covered in the article? The page you've been pointed to WP:RS has sections like Self-published sources which covers this starting "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, posts from other users are secondary/independent, but they in general aren't reliable. Really, information needs to be published somewhere with some kind of reasonable editorial control, a reputation for accuracy, that sort of thing. Random guy on the internet fails that very badly. WilyD14:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, the basic theme is that we don't cover subjects unless reliable sources that are independent of the subject cover it. We'd want to see coverage in something that has an editorial staff etc. Why? It's basically because there are folks who think we should cover most anything that can be verified (so is "sure" to be true) and others who don't want us covering trivia. The compromise is found in WP:N which gives us a guideline as to what we do and do not cover. In my ideal world, this language would be covered here. But my preferences aren't the bar for inclusion around here, WP:N is. So until you see non-trivial coverage in some publication in the field, it is unlikely we'll cover the language here (at least in an article by itself, there may be a list article somewhere it could be added to?). Hobit (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
