Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qupzilla Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qupzilla

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QupZilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I can't find any sources on Google Books, and only one news article in Russian on Google News - not enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. I can see this becoming notable in the future, but I think at the moment it may be too soon for us to have an article on it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Nsda (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nsda, and thanks for participating. I just wanted to say that this is a discussion, not a vote, so just saying "delete" won't hold much sway on the final decision. Could you let us know why you think the article should be deleted? (Bear in mind that the best rationales are based in Wikipedia's deletion policy.) Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have moved the article from Qupzilla to QupZilla following discussion on Talk:QupZilla. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the article already links to OMG! Ubuntu and Free Software Magazine articles about it, which satisfies WP:GNG. While OMG's review is routine (despite the name), FSM's article (again in contrast to its name) implies notability by noting QupZilla's "features that other browsers should emulate", so it satisfies WP:NSOFT. I also added the articles from PC Week/RE (magazine's staff blog, Russian, positive impressions after month of usage), OpenNet (reliable Russian source with Linux-related topics, project's history, probably the most comprehensive description) and Root.cz (reliable Czech source, though article is an entry of weekly column "Software picks", which doesn't help much with verification, but shows notability). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, ok. :) I wasn't sure that the references in the article already counted as reliable sources, but if you think they do, then I will trust you. Coupled with the other references you found, I agree that it looks like enough to prove notability, so I think I'll withdraw this nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:14, 25 February 2012 (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.