Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QCubed (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Those requesting the inclusion of this article have failed to produce evidence of notability. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 21:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

QCubed
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An application that fails to meet the GNG, shows very little notability.  Alex discussion ★ 21:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know how I can improve the article. I am still in process of adding content to it. Some suggestion would be really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavkaushal123 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I have updated the article with references. Is the article now in a good enough shape? If now, how can I still improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhavkaushal123 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the citations that you have added are all primary sources, which can not be used to demonstrate notability. Primary sources use the subject of an article to describe itself, such as using quoted passages from a book to describe the characters in it.  Secondary sources, such as newspaper articles, describe the subject from an external viewpoint.  Tertiary sources, such as Wikipedia, summarize secondary sources.  We need independent, reliable secondary sources that show significant coverage of the topic.  Reliable sources must have a demonstrated history of fact-checking and an editorial department.  Unreliable sources would be blogs, personal home pages, press releases, and other self-published articles.  You can see a quick summary at WP:42.  The easiest way to satisfy these requirements is to locate reviews from professional journalists, such as PC World, PC Magazine, CNET, or other technology sites.  Remember, blogs don't count. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 'Delete. Not a notable topic (see WP:GNG for general notability guidelines). No significant coverage in reliable sources that I could find. There's a book on QCubed but it's self-published. QCubed is mentioned incidentally in Vaibhavkaushal123, it is a good effort, but there is nothing you can do; the topic simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirement (read WP:GNG). Scholarly journals or other reliable sources (e.g. industry magazines, books, conference proceedings) need to cover the topic, and they don't. Your article is informative and I hope you aren't discouraged from contributing to other Wikipedia articles. ––Agyle (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Katakwa, T. P., C. Musingwini, and B. Genc. "Online database of mine planning and peripheral software used in the South African mining industry." Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 113.6 (2013): 497-504.
 * Delete - Just doesn't meet notability - I couldn't find anything useful to add as a reliable source. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2014 (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.