Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q4OS


 * 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. Notability not established. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Q4OS

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. The only thing even close to a third party source is this. A single review from a site that makes a point to review as much as they can does not meet WP:GNG, and most certainly does not meet WP:NSOFT. The PROD was contested, citing the source above as well as a Softpedia review, but Softpedia is not a third-party source; they host the software in question and thus not unaffiliated with the software, as consensus has previously shown. Aoidh (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as this still questionable because my searches only found some links at News but nothing else outstandingly better convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  05:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hi. I'd like to stay neutral in this but I vehemently disagree with the statements "Softpedia is not a third-party source", "not unaffiliated with the software" and especially "as consensus has previously shown". Softpedia is a web mirror and independent reviewer. It is used in Featured Articles too. As far as WP:N is concerned, Softpedia can both host and adore Q4OS and retain its status as reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject itself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When Softpedia says "You can download Q4OS 1.4.3 right now from Softpedia" it brings into question the claim that it has nothing to do with Q4OS. Regardless, it takes more than a questionable Softpedia review and another run-of-the-mill review to create notability. - Aoidh (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are implying that the only web mirrors are evil web mirrors that have ulterior motives. RealNetworks made the same assumption when it sued Hilbrand Edskes for hosting a link. Of course, the UN court judge dismissed this assumption and made RealNetworks pay €48,000 in damages.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not implying any such thing. Not being independent of a subject does not make the source "evil" or have "ulterior motives". It just makes it insufficient to establish notability. - Aoidh (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You made it worse. Now you are saying all websites that host something are connected to that thing in such a way makes their opinion worthless. i.e. if I have a file on my computer, I am in cahoots with its creator. AFAIK, a web mirror can even receive money for mirroring a file and still be independent from the subject itself. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also not what I said, nor is your example relevant to what I'm saying. I've explained why it's not an independent source, but you're arguing against things I've never said. - Aoidh (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the last two message, we have established that evil web mirrors with ulterior motivations are not the only mirrors and hosting alone does not imply affiliation. So, what connects the dots? The thing that carries Softpedia away from unaffiliated mirrors and makes it a "not unaffiliated" mirror. What is it? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I gotta be honest, I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. You're talking about "evil web mirrors with ulterior motives" and arguing against that, but I've certainly said nothing even close to that. I've explained why it's not independent of the software, you're going on about "evil" things instead of addressing what I said. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But I generally agree that one review alone, be it in Softpedia, PC Magazine, PC World, Computerworld, Ars Technica or The Verge, is far from sufficient to establish notability. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources:, ~Kvng (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG requires multiple sources, and two routine reviews, one of which is of questionable independent from the subject (at best) does not meet that requirement. - Aoidh (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NSOFT indicates reviews can be used to establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Can be. I highly doubt that the software "...has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources" given that these two reviews say nothing of the sort. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, AfD != Cleanup. – Be..anyone (talk)  21:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody has mentioned cleanup in any capacity, that's not the issue. It wasn't sent to AfD because of a need for cleanup, it was sent for lack of notability. That's not something cleaning up the article will help. - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Lack of high quality sources. I cannot find any relevant hits on Google Books or Google Scholar. Google News returns some not very prestigious sources such as Softpedia and LinuxInsider, but no mentions in the more established IT industry trade press, no mentions in the academic journals or conference proceedings. Linux distributions are a dime a dozen (it is so easy to start a new one simply by forking an existing one), so I think a higher bar of notability should apply to minor Linux distributions, and I don't believe this distribution meets that bar. I think a good test (but maybe not a decisive test) for the notability of Linux distributions is whether LWN.net covers them in depth (i.e. any coverage beyond mention on the LWN Linux Distributions List, which aims to be exhaustive and hence isn't a good indicator of notability) – and this distribution fails that test. SJK (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete for now, I couldn't find any reliable sources apart from the reviews (which are blogs anyway). I would like someone to move it to either my userspace or the draft space, I may be able to improve it. It needs more than just sources, it is promotional as well as the fact it looks like a machine translation. If it was neutral and well written, I would have voted Keep- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. See my comment above. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (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.