Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 8 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Quiet Internet Pager

• Articles for deletion/Quiet Internet Pager
• Articles for deletion/Quiet Internet Pager (2nd nomination)

Quiet Internet Pager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unable to locate multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. Only good piece of coverage I can find is the one Softpedia review. Cybercobra (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep The several Russian reviews in reliable sources convince me this is notable. I would Withdraw the AfD, but cannot as there have been Delete votes. It would be nice if someone were to actually add the sources uncovered in this AfD to the article itself. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I haven't found much either, just this which appears to be a Slovakian blog of some sort. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete Might become notable when noticed by the general marketplace, but for now I suspect WP:ARTSPAM. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Same reason as before. Miami33139 (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• DELETE AGAIN. Huh, what? Why was this article re-created? Was a deletion overturned at DRV? Help me out here, because this thing hasn't gained any new notability from what I can tell and I want to understand why we are wasting our time on this for the second time. JBsupreme (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep without prejudice. I am changing my !vote in good faith. I cannot speak/read Russian, so I am trusting that the sources being cited in that language fit our needs for reliable third party publications and that the coverage provided is non-trivial. If this article is challenged again in the future I hope that we have more Russian speaking people to represent all sides for consideration. JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, apparently DRV let a fresh userspace draft be moved to article-space. I suppose a G4 speedy could be / have been attempted, but at least an AfD will resolve the issue conclusively. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP It is a well known software in countries with majority of ICQ users. It has 5 million hits on google, with few millions of downloads (just two download sites of 2005 version are here and here) and some articles on biggest czech news site and on blogs. 89.103.90.50 (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC) — 89.103.90.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Blogs, WP:GHITS, and WP:BIGNUMBER are not valid notability metrics. I'll have a look at the news article you point to. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, looked at the Google Translation of the news article. It's fairly short and doesn't go into a lot of depth, so notability is still at best borderline. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the November 3, 2009 DRV and sources that were added to the article that show this software to be notable and quite popular. The repeated nominations and "its just not notable" arguments from the same editors, one of whom has a major conflict of interest with articles relating to computer software and hardware, who continues to engage in tendentious editing, and who continues to attempt to drive off productive editors is extremely disruptive, and it needs to stop. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The DRV closer specifically stated: "Any editor who wishes may list it at AfD". The only sources as to its popularity are what appears to be an unscientific user poll (and therefore not useful for notability determination) and a statement from its corporate owner that it was its "most popular service", which since it is only a relative measure is not that useful (and the characterization of it as a "service" does not instill confidence in the reliability of the information). I can't speak as to the rest of your comment as I was not involved in the previous AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The fact that this software is represented on eleven other Misplaced Pages projects weakens claims that it is "not notable" in any common sense meaning of that word. I didnt check all of them, but the Russian, Czech and German Wikipedias have substantial revision histories with many different editors contributing. It might be a WP:BIAS issue. But it is obviously not a self-evident NN candidate. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Interwiki links are never an indicator of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, given sources are not significant and I cannot find any such. Fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Banned in google or just lazy? bit.ly/6P7Q2j --92.243.182.174 (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Direct link instead of given above: Maksa (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• keep It is the MOST popular icq client novadays. (At least more popular than native ICQ). Just dont be lazy to use google to prove it. 94.27.104.152 (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC) — 94.27.104.152 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Popularity is not a keep reason. Haakon (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • And what is the reason?? There're thousands of links but the most part of them are in German, Russian, Bulgarian, Herbrew. In languages of that coutries where ICQ is the most popular IM-network. Your ignorance of the Russian, German or Bulgarian languages is not the reason for deletion. --RussianSpy (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you affirm that being not just a popular, but a most popular multi-million-users (assumed to be higher than 5M) program in a mainstream niche, is insufficient for notability? This seems very biased against the software, as, for example, Ferrari F40 has 4000 times lower userbase. Honeyman (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Is a lot of articles in russian IT press a good reason not to delete this article. E.e article in Computerra 94.27.104.152 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC).
• KEEP there's a lot of articles in wikipedia about email clients that nobody knows, but one of the most used messengers should be deleted? wth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull-Dozer (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep.
  • It is numerously covered in russian offline and online newspapers/magazines, including non-IT-oriented ones, such as Lenta.Ru, Gazeta.Ru, Vedomosti, Computerra, Home PC (links are easily googleable), including "main topic" articles (what is more than required for the "Significant coverage" point of the notability). The magazine/newspaper names above should fall under "Reliable", "Secondary sources", "Independent of the subject".
  • Quick search confirms that it is mentioned by Top 15 Russian Internet Properties by Audience Reach, February 2008 report by ComScore, NASDAQ-trading marketing research agency, as having 26.6% reach in the audience, as well as in the TNS reports as one of the two most popular ICQ clients in Russia. I believe, these are the undisputably significant and independent sources. Honeyman (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Hey, people, why won't you delete QQ? It is also a hugely popular IM-client on it's local market. Anyway, here's some more reviews , , , .
  I am pretty much shocked and feel like I'm banging head agianst the wall — I have to prove the popularity of the client I see everywhere just because it is used primarily in russophone countries. And yet the popularity is not a criteria. OMG, what is a criteria for a chat client?
  Ah, I see Gajim is set up for deletion too. Way to go, WP. I can also suggest Fluxbox or xcdroast for deletion — why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.133.181 (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Do you remember WP:IGNORE?? At least 10 million people from Russia, Germany, Israel, Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc use QIP. Is it not enough for article? --RussianSpy (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Emotions won't help. You'd better go search for reliable sources and post them here or in the article - it is quite easy to find them, in fact, if you know Russian. --Maxxicum (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Another AfD advertised on Russian blogs and attracting pile-on keep "votes" with no argument addressing Misplaced Pages issues that I hope the closer will identify and discount appropriately. Miami33139 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Honeyman. Reliable sources can easily be found. It was covered in multiple IT-oriented journals, as well as many mass media news. --Maxxicum (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • For example, here is an independent in-depth 7 page review article of QIP Infium features by Alexey Sadovsky (in Russian). --Maxxicum (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And here is an example of coverage in the news: 3DNews.ru, a large and well-known Russian IT site, talks about a new version of QIP for PDA. (in Russian). --Maxxicum (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is another thorough review of QIP version for Symbian at ixbt.com (an old and authoritative Russian IT portal): . --Maxxicum (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Summary: just because you can't find any reviews in English doesn't mean there are no reviews at all. --Maxxicum (talk) 04:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Alternative ICQ Clients, QIP PDA Review. 95.156.98.12 (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Reliable and noticeable sources have been provided in the article. Please keep away from wikipedia with constant AfD vandalism. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No, they haven't. The closest thing in the article is "In 2008 it was bought by RosBusinessConsulting media group and named most popular RBC service in 2009.". That's only 1 source (notability needs multiple), and I responded above as to why it's dubious in counting towards notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • KanICQ is notable source. Elk Salmon (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Elk Salmon, your comment is inappropriate and borders on a personal attack. Would you please have the decency to retract? Thank you and happy holidays. JBsupreme (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't say any names. But was refering to several participants in this AfD discussion. You know who. Please mind it's not a personal attack, but a notification that constant attempts to delete (blank) the page with no clear reason meets WP:VAN. Elk Salmon (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
      • That is good and well, but challenging the reliability of sources is a healthy part of the editorial process, not vandalism. I stand by my original request asking you to withdraw your comment and assume good faith. Happy holidays, JBsupreme (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:30, 22 December 2009 (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.