Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gleam (programming language) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gleam_(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. This is difficult as the nominator and participants disagree about the value of the sources included in the article. But I see no other support for deletion and a rough consensus to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gleam (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable programming language, lack of SIGCOV/reliable sources, and reads like a documentation. In addition, there is a lack of secondary sources. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Krill article and the De Simone article that are already cited establish notability. Both provide in-depth coverage and are reliable. The author of the former has been a journalist for three decades and the latter has been a software engineer for more than two. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided are sufficient for the extent of the article, see reasons given above. Korn (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's also this update by Krill that's not currently in the article. Should be just enough to meet GNG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just heard about Gleam a minute ago and wanted to read the Wikipedia article about it. Strong sign that it is notable. KristofferR (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.