Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QiSoftware

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QiSoftware

An obvious company-sponsored marketing blurb. The name gets about 140 distinct hits on Google. This one-man operation doesn't seem anywhere near the notability requirements of WP:CORP. Delete Owen× ☎ 03:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, but I'd say this can be speedied. There is no reason to AfD it. --Pmetzger 03:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This does allege notability (so it's not an A7, although the one-man-band part of it makes it nearly so) and it does have content other than an external link, so it's not an A1. It doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion; maybe it'll turn out that they've made some wildly-popular program or something.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is adspam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --HappyCamper 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment How many times is "Blogger Calendar" pointing back [from Google] to QiSoftware WP:CORP? There are also other issues -- related to bigger things, and I get enough promotion elsewhere. This is not a company ad. QiSoftware 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 03:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NSLE (讨论+extra) 05:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This was put into the Articles for deletion queue because I incorrectly provided a link when I used "QiSoftware". I corrected that almost immediately. Does one have to specify why an article should be deleted if the original reason is no longer viable? QiSoftware 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The original reason is just as valid as it was before. Unless you can show why your company is notable, this article doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 05:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I developed the "Blogger Calendar" at the time blogging was gaining momentum --. The calendar is a Java servlet/applet combination and generates a lot of curiousity... It has received very good reviews. The primary difference between my tool and other blog calendars is that it does not refresh pages each time something is clicked. It allows the user to naviagate month to month and only retrieves posts when the user specifically requests a post or month.

        Bloggerforum.com where I first discussed the planned implementation and development... has about 4100 hits on the development topic alone. On my forum, it also receives a lot of attention. The tool is popular, especially in that it can also support Blogger.com blogs which is the largest blog platform to date.

        Not only that I have come up with other innovative tools -- I am not a one hit wonder.... I have been dealing in the software arena for a number of years.... "My version of the "Blogger Calendar" is notable..... However, because of issues I have elsewhere my focus is not on promoting this tool, or any of my other software tools. I have other issues elsewhere that supersede my business issues. Truly... QiSoftware 05:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

        • If, as you claim, your software has been reviewed, then you should have little trouble demonstrating that it satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Simply provide (in the article) citations for reviews of your software that have been written by people independent of you and your company, and published by reliable sources such as computer magazines. The same goes for your company. Please provide citations of where people that are independent of you and your company have published works of their own (biographies, histories, in-depth news articles, consumer reports, and suchlike) that are about your company. Uncle G 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Eusebeus 13:01, 21 November 2005 (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.