Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qpst (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. This article was previously deleted. The software exists, however Wikipedia doea not store information indiscriminately, we have notability guidelines to indicate those topics that reliable sources have indicated are sufficently interesting for the general reader. This topic does not meet our inclusion guidelines.  SilkTork  *YES! 00:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Probably doesn't meed the general notability guideline Dawnseeker2000   23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep  As noted on the page, this is an often discussed program.  The references are not good and there should be better ones.  The significance of this program is well established by the thousands of discussions on phone forums.  The article was viewed 1200 times in February:  http://stats.grok.se/en/201102/Qpst   Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not finding sources to support notability here, though there are some indications that notability is present, as Daniel Cardenas notes. Pageviews are not one of those indicators, unfortunately, but I'm seeing enough mentions here and there to suggest some interest in the software. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - There's lots of forum posts, but not coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete not seeing the requisite substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  07:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about a guideline? What do you think the guideline would say about a topic that shows up 10,000 times in discussion forums?  That sounds very substantial to me.  Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that discussion forums are absolutely never reliable sources. Try again. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A reliable source of what? 100K+ google web hits definitely suggests it is a notable item.  To break that down further, you have links for downloading of the software at various file shares, various youtube videos discussing how to use the software, already discussed tons of forum discussions, and wikipedia page views that show notability of topic. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2011 (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.