I find it kind of strange just how dedicated "Artem Karimov" is to getting this page deleted.

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.

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.

Why is BTW an 18-year old student from Moscow, the very definition of not notable.

"Notability is not inherited" makes perfect sense. Doing something notable doesn't make you notable. Doing many notable things might make you notable. Doing something that is supremely notable might make you notable. Clojure clearly doesn't qualify.

I call bullshit. Please remove your wiki page for Grace Metalious. She never did anything but write a few trashy novels. I came up with that example in about two seconds. I'm pretty sure I could go on all day. Notability _is_ inherited. Except of course in the case of Wikipedia editors, whose contributions are minute and often negative.

Are those novels notable? Then by my definition she would gain notability for that.

As a general rule, if the only interesting information about a person is that they did X, then they do not deserve a page of their own. It adds no useful knowledge.

Now that I think of it, that is really what this is about. Does having a page about this guy that basically says he created clojure add anything useful to the world? It's clear in this case it doesn't. At least nothing that couldn't be said in the clojure article.

Knowledge is about organization (it could be argued that knowledge literally is organizing information). Does having an article about a guy whose sole notable accomplishment is clojure help to increase knowledge, ie increase organization of information? No, there is nothing to organize. For your Grace Metalious example, having a page that organizes her notable accomplishments is in fact adding knowledge to the world.

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.

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 potentially notable, but none are when they're shotgunned at the reader.

Of the sources there, Code Quarterly might qualify as a respectable publication, if it takes off -- it too is new.

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, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Poole redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan 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.

It depends on the person. Different people have different motivations for wanting an article deleted:

- Purism with respect to Wikipedia policies (I would place this example in this category)

- Ideological commitment to notions about what an encyclopedia "should" be

- Personal vendettas

- ...and so on

Its simple really: wikipedia shouldn't be the dumping ground for any and all information--that's what the internet is for.

In this specific case, the only notable thing about this guy is that he invented clojure. Thus he should have a mention or a footnote on the wikipedia page for clojure. He hasn't done enough to himself be notable.

I have to admit being somewhat surprised to find a concise, interesting debate where neither side is being particularly dumb or unreasonable.

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.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CANVAS

[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, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus describes it, but nailing what it really means in practice is much more difficult.

[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.

FWIW, I didn't submit to attempt to save the article. Wikipedia, deletionism and inclusionism on the same, and Clojure are all of varying interest to the HN populace, so it seemed like an interesting nugget of info.