- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
QuickWin
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- QuickWin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Undid a presumptive bad-faith PROD nomination by LTA, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Software_projects_crosswiki_LTA, but I have reason to believe that this is genuinely non-notable. This purportedly obsolete software has no non-primary sources, and includes a line about an unrelated project with the same name. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. In just browsing through google books there are some independent reviews of QuickWin and plenty of coverage in books; although they are highly technical (I didn't even comprehend the reviews entirely). I do think an article could be made by someone with a general knowledge of computer programming that would pass GNG. However, I am not opposed to a soft deletion either unless someone comes along who wants to actually put some work into the article. I don't feel comfortable enough with the topical area to do it myself. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist to get at least one second opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly an important software tool in its day, but was rapidly superseded. Reviews from the period here and here. It's use with Visual Fortran apps is described in depth in Digital Visual Fortran Programmer's Guide and Compaq Visual Fortran: A Guide to Creating Windows Applications. Spinning Spark 11:40, 2 July 2022 (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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
QuickWin
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- QuickWin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Undid a presumptive bad-faith PROD nomination by LTA, per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Software_projects_crosswiki_LTA, but I have reason to believe that this is genuinely non-notable. This purportedly obsolete software has no non-primary sources, and includes a line about an unrelated project with the same name. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 19:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. In just browsing through google books there are some independent reviews of QuickWin and plenty of coverage in books; although they are highly technical (I didn't even comprehend the reviews entirely). I do think an article could be made by someone with a general knowledge of computer programming that would pass GNG. However, I am not opposed to a soft deletion either unless someone comes along who wants to actually put some work into the article. I don't feel comfortable enough with the topical area to do it myself. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist to get at least one second opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly an important software tool in its day, but was rapidly superseded. Reviews from the period here and here. It's use with Visual Fortran apps is described in depth in Digital Visual Fortran Programmer's Guide and Compaq Visual Fortran: A Guide to Creating Windows Applications. Spinning Spark 11:40, 2 July 2022 (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.