Deletion of Nim (programming language)

Comment: Can this article be merged anywhere? If the consensus ends up that Nim is still not notable enough for a stand alone article per Wikipedia rules, I argue that it is still plenty notable enough for being in Wikipedia (see ). Is there some "Lists of new programming languages from 2008" or a comparative table where it fits? If there is not, I think such a page should be created, as it would remove much attrition from deletion requests like this (it would not be a total deletion, more of a move), as well as having the redirect in place will prevent newbies from re-creating the article thinking Wikipedia is missing information (as already happened with Nim, as per one of my links). Less useless energy dispended across language deletions and more useful and organized content in Wikipedia. Seems like a win-win
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTEWORTHY)

Comment: We have a couple of essays and a failed guideline that help (somewhat):  and , Wikipedia:Software notability . This passes 99BOTTLES http://www.99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-nimrod-2245.html
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSOFT||WP:99BOTTLES)

Comment: despite strenuous efforts the sources to support |notability simply aren't there. The article cites an array of unreliable and obviously primary sources (GitHub, slashdot, reddit, blogs, etc). The only ones which look more respectable are http://www.infoq.com/presentations/nimrod and http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/nimrod-a-new-systems-programming-languag/240165321 and since both were written by the creator of the language they can't be considered completely independent of the subject. I don't think the sources presented here are much more impressive. http://www.infoworld.com/article/2685357/javascript/experimental-javascript-compiler-higgs.html and http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/the-rise-and-fall-of-languages-in-2013/240165192 are obviously trivial mentions. http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 is a bit better but we can't base notability on what amounts to one slide in a presentation.We also have various other arguments, but none is consistent with our notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether people think that this programming language is interesting, whether it is used by people, or whether it is recognised by someone as a language unless it has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Someone argued above that there is some kind of systematic bias against availability of reliable sources on this subject. I think the exact opposite is true: Wikipedians tend to be interested in technology and the open-source movement, and tend to prefer sources which are available for free on the internet. An open-source programming language is exactly the link of area where I would expect a particularly exhaustive search of the available sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: While the article is right next to the edge of being notable the subject is well known enough to a large enough audience that deletion of this article now would inevitable cause the article to be restored at a later date in the near future. And before someone says otherwise: This argument does not violate  as the subject already has attention, it's just that a reliable source hasn't written about it yet. Despite saying that this is only a weak keep I believe that this AfD is an inappropriate use of most contributors time precisely because of the reason explained, but to each to his own
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)