Other than that, all the languages you mentioned are either old (5+ years) or have corporate backing, or both - and it should be obvious that we're not talking about langs like these. Aside from Arc you failed to mention even one language comparable to Nimrod in terms of existing sources.

Meanwhile, look at newLisp article and its references. Why does it exist? It has four referenced sources, where one is "unreliable", one is an article comparable to the one in Dr.Dobbs on Nimrod and two remaining ones are posts by the author.

Look at Felix article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_%28programming_language%2...). It has no source whatsoever, yet it still exists.

Same with Alice ML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_%28programming_language%2...) - which is probably just laziness of editors, because Alice papers were published IIRC. Yet they are not referenced at all, and the article still exists.

There is reference to one printed source in Io language article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_%28programming_language%29), so maybe it should be allowed to live. However, "Seven Languages in Seven Weeks" is not a very detailed description of any one language it covers (of course) and I could argue it's not enough to rely on it as an only source.

Lisp flavored Erlang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFE_%28programming_language%29) is apparently well sourced, as the article for it exists. Not even one of the sources was ever published in print.

Same with Hy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy) - all sources are blog posts and similar.

Look, I could really go on. Studying obscure languages nobody heard about is my hobby and I have lots and lots of examples, but I'd hope the above is enough to show you a "double standard" displayed here by Wikipedia editors. Either remove all of those - and no, I'm not going to help you with this - or stop bullying some languages without any reason at all.