Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QloApps


 * 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 07:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

QloApps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see how this meets WP:NCORP or even WP:GNG. Opensource.com reads like an ad, Capterra is the blog of an online marketplace, financesonline doesn't strike me as establishing notability, and neither does any of the other sourcing in the article. A WP:BEFORE before search reveals no other coverage that would be sufficient for notability. While it may be "the only truly free and open-source software that is trying to serve the hotel industry", I don't see the coverage to make it notable. A previous prod was removed, so taking to AFD. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep:Opensoure.com is one of the most trusted platform in the open source industry. It is covering the open source software industry from past 10 year around the globe. Opensource.com is backed by Red Hat and independently cover the open source industry. So it is the most trusted source for any open source software. And many famous systems are using this as a source.

Capterra is also an independent reviewing platform. It lists, compares, and review Softwares independently and write industry-wise blogs on them. Again, Capterra is also used on Wikipedia as a source for many popular Softwares.

As an open-source enthusiast, I have read many articles on Wikipedia on open source software before writing one myself. And I have tried to follow all the guidelines in my articles in a similar manner other pages are doing.

Opensource.com and Capterra both are used by the software are notable sources. Here is one example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERPNext

Please let me know how my use of these sources is not fair.

Now coming to coverage. I found a lot more articles and listing on the internet to prove that the software has optimum coverage on the internet. Although I have added more references in my article and have improved the article, I am figuring out how can I use the other references. Here are some links that I found. https://crozdesk.com/industry-specific/hotel-management-software/qloapps https://www.g2.com/products/qloapps/competitors/alternatives https://sourceforge.net/software/product/QloApps/alternatives https://dribbble.com/tags/qloapps https://alternativeto.net/software/qloapps/ https://www.behance.net/gallery/50349589/Qloapps-an-Opensource-Booking-reservation-System-UI?tracking_source=search_projects_recommended%7Cqloapps https://www.techimply.com/profile/qloapps https://www.business-software.com/product/webkul-software-qloapps/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tomislav_Car/publication/335803521_INTERNET_OF_THINGS_IOT_IN_TOURISM_AND_HOSPITALITY_OPPORTUNITIES_AND_CHALLENGES/links/5d887f6d92851ceb792fae0e/INTERNET-OF-THINGS-IOT-IN-TOURISM-AND-HOSPITALITY-OPPORTUNITIES-AND-CHALLENGES.pdf

According to what I saw on the internet QloApps community is growing fast worldwide. Even some companies have started working on this platform. Here is what I found, http://support.miritech.com/blog/qloapps-a-hotel-booking-and-reservation-system-miri-infotech/ https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/Miri-Infotech-Qloapps-A-customizable-online-reserv/B07D7VH19M

They have more than 300 stars and 250+ forks on Github. So it is visible that software is getting popular. And even freelance developers are also working on this platform. https://www.freelancer.com/projects/php/qloapps-payment-gateway-18825856/

So like any other open-source software QloApps seems to be on the right path. And it is the only software of this nature which is working in the hotel industry. So I deeply believe that QloApps deserves a Wikipedia page.

I will be researching more and more on this topic to improve the article. But still, I have made changes. I will expect your help in improving and retaining the article.

--Fizziwritter (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -   t • c 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Opensource systems are preferred these days to launch a website and most of the websites are based on such systems so because QloApps is one of the few open-source platforms for the hotel industry, I think it is destined to grow.
 * Keep Prestashop and Magento are the two similar open-source platforms that are working in the e-commerce domain. I think that QloApps will have the same impact in the hotel industry as an open-source platform. And it will grow in a similar fashion.

And that is why in my opinion QloApps deserves to be on Wikipedia. Apart from that, it has the required coverage and the impact that is needed to be on Wikipedia.

But still, if I have got any part wrong then I will be more than happy to change it or remove it. I am new to Wikipedia and I need the community to help me in improving the article. I need the community to guide me to improve the article as the topic is deserving to have a wiki article. --Fizziwritter (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote. Renata (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, no opensource.com is not one of the most trusted media. Good sources would be media with a long tradition of independent journalism like Foreign Affairs magazine or the like. Also, you argue that you think it will be important in the future. That is not a valid reason for inclusion. Yes, there is WP:TOOSOON, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect that this thing will suddenly blow up, and there is no evidence to support that. We can't just keep everything that somebody is affiliated with and think will become popular soon. There must be reliable sources now. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete sources are very poor and do not demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP or WP:NSOFT. Steemit is a Reddit clone (WP:UGC), this is just a directory listing, FinancesOnline seems to be a pay-for-reviews outlet, this is a blog, this is just a keyword stuffing SEO spam site, etc. Fizziwriter, please strike your second vote - you only get to vote once. Spicy (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and source analysis of Spicy. Renata (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if there were 20 independent business-y sources (and there's not) the problem with the language of corporate coverage is, it's almost always positive.  The prose has a different set of norms and standards.  It doesn't translate well back into an atmosphere where we're supposed to present balanced views.  Corporate prose is also vague around the edges, sometimes with only fog at its heart, so without an up-to-date factual analysis of its sector and market it would be a day's work to understand the true notability of QloApps -- how it ranks with its competitors and that sort of thing.  Do I see anything that belongs in an encyclopedia?  Definitely not.  --Lockley (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Barely found anything about the app. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 18 July 2020 (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.