Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4QL (query 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 delete. One substantive author has concurred in its deletion. Would be happy to user-fy on request. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4QL (query language)

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

A query language. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Fails
WP:RS - refs given are primary sources AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This actually is more intelligible than I expected. I was at least able to grasp from the text that this is an attempt to create a database query language that uses a
multi-valued logic. Article is slightly but not insurmountably promotional in tone and referenced only to primary sources. GNews and Scholar find nothing, but the article claims that the creator has a published paper in a minor academic journal. I'll leave it to experts to suggest whether there's a place this might be profitably smerged into. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The issue is notability, not intelligibility (which as you say is adequate, though not great). A published paper by the creators has no bearing on this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I just read editor comment at Talk:4QL_(query_language). No one made an effort to establish notability because the requirement was not communicated. --Kvng (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the article. Apparently, I do not quite understand your standards and policies or perhaps disagree with them if apply to my article. Thanks for your time and effort and best regards. Andsz (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – per author's request. Also, I could not find any reliable secondary sources on the subject aside form the single journal article. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2011 (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.