Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi (programming language)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user 5417514488 (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 4 March 2007 (→[[Qi (programming language)]]: close afd as "keep"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 06:40, 4 March 2007 by Renamed user 5417514488 (talk | contribs) (→[[Qi (programming language)]]: close afd as "keep")
- 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. Yuser31415 06:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Qi (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Looks like vanity article. Certainly, notability hasn't been shown or proven. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Running it through Yahoo! brought a few results in, worth letting sit for a week and seeing if the author fleshes it out any further. Not to say it is still anything of note, but a Google group devoted to the subject was in the listing. --Ozgod 05:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, but mark as unsourced to speed up nomination if no sources are added AlfPhotoman 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article was tagged for deletion an hour after it was created. The creator is also a new user, so this may qualify as WP:BITE--though I don't think it was deliberate on the part of the nominator. Rather than nominating the article for deletion, it would have been more constructive to notify the author of any WP:N, WP:V, or other concerns. -- Black Falcon 04:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid reason for keeping the article. The fact that a new user created it doesn't give the subject any more notability than if an old user created it. --Nlu (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait Seems moderately notable, but reads like an advert and is unsourced. I've just wikified it (reducing its problems slightly, but it still has several). --ais523 17:24, 2 March 2007 (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.