I agree, that's one of the reason why I choose it. I love the config file structure, and feel it's actually much quicker to get a new host up and running on nginx over Apache.
It's not the same - you have to compile Nginx with mod_wsgi support. It's not as simple as doing an "apt-get install nginx" and it may compile with your version, or it may not compile.
mod_wsgi is an interesting example. Surely it has the wrong architecture for Nginx and something better could surely be written. But mod_wsgi for Apache simply kicks ass, being a server that manages everything for you with low overhead and good performance caracteristics. No need for supervisord or any of that crap.
Some people go as far as recommending running Nginx in front of Apache, with all the overhead that brings, just for mod_wsgi (although the same could be said about mod_php).
That's the thing about Apache - it's so mature and has so much traction that you can find quality plugins for anything and everything, being an all you can eat buffet.
But then if you're going to put Nginx in front of Apache, why go with Nginx instead of Varnish: http://www.varnish-cache.org/ -- which is designed from the ground-up to function as a high-performance proxy cache (the Nginx plugin for proxy caching sucks donkey balls IMHO)
What I'm trying to say here is that Nginx is very far from a one-size-fits-all. It's awesome for at least one website I've got written in Ruby on Rails and I'm using it in combination with Passenger (Ruby's mod_wsgi).
But for all my other use-cases, I'm starting with Apache first, then reconsider the move to Nginx or not.
