Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shen (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Listing at WP:DELSORT under Computing (FWDS) |
|||
Line 14:
:::A couple questions, Andy: Where are the reliable independent sources? Or in the alternative, what do you rely in the guidelines that supports notability without sources? Every one of the reasons you've given seems to be a reason why the article should be deleted, not kept. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 11:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Northamerica1000|N<font size="-2">ORTH</font> A<font size="-2">MERICA</font>]]<sup><font size="-2">[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|1000]]</font></sup> 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
*'''Comment.''' Here's the problem I have with the argument that the work represents "an important step in language development". 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. [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author%3A%22mark+tarver%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48 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. 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. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 20:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
| |||