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 delete. The article lacks good sourcing and neither in this AfD, nor in the previous one (closed as "no consensus" for good reason) were good sources brought forward. Should Shen (programming language) be kept, there would be no objection of briefly describing Qi in that article. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. All the sources cited in the article are primary. Google searches failed to turn up anything useful. Previous AfD outcomes were keep in 2007 and no consensus in 2012. There wasn't any evidence the subject was notable 8 years ago and there still isn't any today. Msnicki (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative delete Not helping is that a lot of programming pseudocode uses Q-(base)-i as iterative variables. Outside of that distraction, I don't see much independent reliable sources outside of a subreddit, Google Code pages and wikis, and other forums. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge Shen is seen by some as the successor language, merge relevant info to that page.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shen (programming language) has been tagged for COI, notability and primary sources for 3 years. I've nominated it also for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shen (programming language). Msnicki (talk) 10:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There's a vast world of programming language development beyond VisualLisp or whatever dusted-down dinosaur the Seattle behemoth is trying to tell us is their bright new hope this week. Languages like Qi and Shen are important steps in this path, even if no-one builds the next Pinterest out of them (WP went after the Erlang article a while back. Can Scala or Clojure survive next?)

For chapter and verse on why Qi is significant and why WP should keep the article, I refer the interested reader to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi (programming language) (2nd nomination) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Here's the problem I have with the argument that the work represents "an important step". No one's argued anyone's using Qi or Shen and the author, Mark Tarver, is an academic, so I'm inclined to test the claim of importance in the way we often do in academia, which is to ask how often the work has been cited. Here's a Google scholar search on Tarver's papers. His paper on Qi has received only 3 citations and his paper on Shen has received only 2. Drilling down, three of those combined 5 citations are by Tarver himself, leaving these papers with only one citation each by anyone other than the author. Within the STEM disciplines, a significant paper is generally understood to be one that receives over 1000 citations. Qi and Shen are not only not important, almost no one's even noticed they exist. Msnicki (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete For exactly the same reasons as during the previous nomination: we could only find some very trivial mentions of this language, well below the usual notability standard for programming languages. None of those were in sources usable as independent references, which now, three years after the previous nomination, are still completely lacking from the article. As this lanauge seems to have been superseded by Shen (programming language) in the mean time, nothing is likely to change about this situation. The only reasons why the closing admin decided there was "no consensus" during the last nomination is because he did not seem to have taken the canvassing on the external Qi mailing list into account. —Ruud 10:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. See my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shen (programming language) for details, but in short, ideally would be merged with Shen article. But at best wonky licensing has caused both languages to be stillborn :-(, and at this point it's clear that's not going to change, so I can't argue for notability. Hga (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a lack of secondary sources make it hard to establish notability for this programming language. Aerospeed (Talk) 13:59, 3 March 2015 (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.