Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Q research software


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Q research software

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reads like an advertisement and does not appear to be a notable or well known product. Based on the history, may have been written by the developers of this product. Sigilian (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Promotional article, sources don't meet notability requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. The listed criteria for deletion have been misread.  In particular:
 * The page does not read like an advertisement. Neither the style nor content seeks to encourage, persuade, or manipulate an audience.
 * Yes, the page has indeed been contributed to by developers (including me). However, this is not a criteria for deletion.  The relevant policy - Notability - relates to the independence of the references, not the independence of the authors of the page.  The Q research software page cites independent reviews and thus this criteria for deletion is not applicable.  Further, if everybody who had an interest in the content of a page were barred from contributing to the page then there would be little on Wikipedia.
 * There is no policy that content must relate to things that are "well known". Indeed, we would lose at least 99.9999999% of the content if that were the requirement and there is no need for any authorative resource which documents things that are "well known".  For such a criteria to be operational would require a definition of the "who" amongst which a product is "well known", which is impractical. It is certainly true that the product is only well known amongst market researchers in Australia and New Zealand, but there are many pages with a substantially more obscure level of interest.timbo (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable. No RS articles.  Everything traces back to the company provided PR/website and/or blogs.  Caffeyw (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2013 (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.