- 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 no consensus. North America1000 05:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Qiqqa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed but I still confirm it (see here) as there's still no convincing substance. I will also then note the IP objected to not only the advertorialism but also then making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS & WP:WAX comment. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which reasons of WP:DEL-REASON? Not-notable? Advertising? Would like to see a concrete basis. Avram (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See link above. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see the sources as reliable and substantial and see notability under GNG. Agree that article's tone is less than optimal and that the arguments vs PROD were unsatisfactory. But that doesn't mean that the article's basic notability is negated. Avram (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Qiqqa is a reference management solution that should have a place on Wikipedia. I improved the tone (mostly, neutral language) and deleted several overtly praising passages. --Pahi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.