Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zig (programming language)

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. — The Earwig (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Zig (programming language)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Zig (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in RS to establish notability. The theregister.co.uk and SD News citations are just mentions in passing. Infoworld gave it a page in 2016 but IMO that not enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, Several WP:SPS and lack of WP:SIGCOV.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Kieran207, please ignore the crappy sources when assessing notability. Did you not find any WP:RELIABLE sources with WP:SIGCOV? ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, True, the project is recent and has not received a lot of coverage due to its volatility. Yet https://lwn.net/Articles/833400/ on LWN.net has not been written by the developer group and is quite recent. Not sure if this counts as significant, though it's certainly not low effort. --User:LuckyStarr 09:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Zig is an open-source project (We relax our criteria for these projects). When looking at GitHub it looks like a serious work (over 12K commits, 8K stars, and 300 contributors). After deep search (I checked all of the links provided by Google search engine after search using "Zig programming") I could get the next resources

• (1) https://fosdem.org/2021/schedule/track/zig_programming_language/ - Four lectures by different authors in FOSDEM - (I don't know if this is good for notability or not - Can we use videos as reliable references? I guess Yes)

• (2) https://www.gingerbill.org/article/2019/05/13/a-reply-to-the-road-to-zig/ - An article by Ginger Bill - Author of Odin programming language : https://odin-lang.org/ - (Maybe useful for notability)

• (3) https://itscomputersciencetime.netlify.app/zig-thoughts/ - Written by an author who published many technical articles in different topics through many years. (I know, We can say it's a blog article - Not Reliable)

• (4) https://sudonull.com/post/3683-Zig-programming-language

• I expected to find more/better references (After checking it in GitHub) but I can't find many of them.

• Kvng I am interested in your opinion. Charmk (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability established under WP:GNG by [1], [2] and [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Kvng Thanks, I vote to Keep too, Also this reference is useful. Charmk (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral: The above makes me doubt my original conclusion. I am going to wait to see if there are more comments, and then will most likely go with the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, LWN and Infoworld are reliable sources and have significant coverage - plenty of detail and context to be the basis of an article. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:01, 24 February 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.