Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language) (5th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A large percentage of the keep comments here have no grounding in policy; what matters is whether there are reliable sources providing significant coverage of the programming language, not how many pageviews the article receives, whether you like it, or whether it is merely related to notable things. Even with these arguments discounted, there is consensus that sufficient sourcing exists to establish the notability of the subject. Many sources are recent, challenging the nominator's claim that the language has faded into obscurity, and making the previous discussions in 2015 and earlier less applicable. Of course, there is also consensus that the article needs substantial trimming and improved sourcing, and that it should not be linked inappropriately from other articles, but neither of these are reasons for deletion. —&#8239; The Earwig (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Nim (programming language)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another open source computer language that never quite achieved notability despite the developer's attempts to promote it.

Most of the citations are to nim-lang.org or the Nim github page.

15 page views in the last 30 days (including mine).

A few sources that pretty much cover everything new covered this when it was new. The developers also managed to get invited to make presentations at some conferences.

And now some of the fans are spamming it into the "see also" of all the other computer languages. See. Example: Rust (programming language) -- it is the only language listed even though Rust has nothing to do with Nim and everything to do with C++


 * Last AfD was in 2015 when it was new: Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language) (The 2019 AfD was just an attempt at disruption and never had a real discussion)
 * Deletion review in 2015: Deletion review/Log/2015 April 26
 * Many opinions about deletion attempts on Talk:Nim (programming language), mostly from 2015.

Bottom line: it looked promising when it was shiny and new but never quite took off and became notable. Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Well I didn't expect to see this here when I went looking at AfD for the first time in a few weeks... I've heard quite a bit about this language through word-of-mouth, so I'm inclined to say weak keep, but I think a lot of those arguments have a good amount of merit. I will say that at first glance it looks like the article could be trimmed considerably, as several sections seem irrelevant for a programming language this "small". It makes sense to me that that could be an attempt by fans to improve its appearance by giving it a visually (as in length and syntax highlighting) developed article on Wikipedia. I'll have to do some reading and research, but I'm fairly confident discussion is warranted—I wouldn't be surprised if I end up going towards delete, here. Perryprog (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * keep: So people are trying to censor me from learning about nim from Wikipedia! Wikipedia will be the poorer without the article, even if it is a false trail as it has a significant presence around the Web.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * After searching a bit I found 1 2 3 sources discussing Nim in some depth. ZDNet is listed at WP:RSP as reliable, and the others have Wikipedia articles - so not just niche sources (i.e. probably reliable). While the amount of coverage isn't great, this is a relatively new programming language that has gotten some usage, so I support keeping the article. However, it could certainly be trimmed a bit. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * keep This page has a discrete traffic, not only 15 views/day: https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=this-month&pages=Nim_(programming_language), however I've seen that there is age-old lack of reliable sources, but I think that it is possible to help this piece of C.S. to make it take flight. ZandDev (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * keep Searching around for "nim programming language" I have found at least the following sources which I believe meet WP:GNG,, , , , . The article is definitely far too long though and I would support trimming it. This AfD seems to imply that "And now some of the fans are spamming it into the "see also" of all the other computer languages." is a reason to vote for deletion, surely that should be moderated separately and have no bearing on the decision here. Also, the page views metric quoted in this AfD is plain wrong, this article in fact gets significant traffic (over 200 views per day ) dom 9 6  (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * keep FWIW, comparing Nim and D-lang (https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=all-agents&redirects=0&start=2015-07-01&end=2021-01-31&pages=Nim_(programming_language)|D_(programming_language) ), D-lang is steadily falling while Nim keeps growing. Right now they are both around 300-400 visits. ADA-lang is also below 1000 visits. HyperTalk is less than 50 visits. Regarding relevance: currently https://github.com/brentp/mosdepth (written in Nim) is the fastest tool to calculate NGS coverages, quickly becoming the standard (cited in more than 100 papers in the last 2 years). 92.191.80.196 (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep having ZDNet and The Register cover its 1.0 launch is sufficient coverage. It's clearly not just someone's Sourceforge project.  Promotionalism issues can be dealt with separately. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.