- 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. Sandstein 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- QOwnNotes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest this software is notable, fails WP:GNG. Also doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT and WP:NSOFT. — UY Scuti Talk 12:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti Talk 12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What would "significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest this software is notable" be to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Most applications on Comparison of notetaking software are projects of individuals and QOwnNotes is free open source, has its user base and is a non profit project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitlion ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS - generally, 2 or more references to reliable, independent sources are needed to establish notability. The coverage must be substantial (a paragraph or more) rather than an incidental mention. Dialectric ( talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Apparently nothing to suggest better yet, draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (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.
- 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. Sandstein 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- QOwnNotes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Little to no significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest this software is notable, fails WP:GNG. Also doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT and WP:NSOFT. — UY Scuti Talk 12:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — UY Scuti Talk 12:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What would "significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest this software is notable" be to be mentioned on Wikipedia? Most applications on Comparison of notetaking software are projects of individuals and QOwnNotes is free open source, has its user base and is a non profit project.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruitlion ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS - generally, 2 or more references to reliable, independent sources are needed to establish notability. The coverage must be substantial (a paragraph or more) rather than an incidental mention. Dialectric ( talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Apparently nothing to suggest better yet, draft and userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 14:40, 12 January 2016 (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.