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 redirect to Avvasi. Article has already been redirected so let's close it that way. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q-VUE[edit]

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

Unremarkable software, new to market, no news or significant coverage by independent sources. Article has only primary references, no others found after searching. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See below. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep

sources have been improved
coverage from independent sources is out there, this has been reflected in sources
software is certainly remarkable, level of detail to which it is addressed is another story. Though the company only divulges limited info, why shouldn't it be available to the public?
neutrality of tone is a difficult point to argue considering the limited length of the article. The words used are not descriptive in nature and there are no statements (implied or otherwise) of superiority or advantage. RaphaelCapon (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The [1] reference amounts to little more than a compilation of press releases. It isn't an article on them. The other cite is a broken link to a video, which wouldn't matter as tmcnet.com isn't a reliable source, they just host videos for any business. The third is their own website. The article is still unreferenced by reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Neither remarkableness nor market age is relevant to the notability status.—RJH (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually 'remarkable' is the same as 'notable' in the context of article deletion. That is why it is even used in the automated tools for CSD articles. Unremarkable is just another way of saying not notable, per accepted (and current) use in the English Wikipedia. Market age matters only in that you likely won't be finding sources in books or scholar, and perhaps none older than a week, which makes searching much easier. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

links have been updated
As I continue sifting through more and more links and sources to validate this article, it is becoming increasingly clear that the product has indeed received enough attention to be considered notable/remarkableRaphaelCapon (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Avvasi As of the version I'm seeing [2] there are three references. Apparantly the same three Dennis Brown was talking about. One is company's own website. Two's WP:SPS. Three isn' abot Q-VUE specifically so notability is next to nil. Also, hasn't anyone noticed that this article contains four sentences? Merge it with Avvasi, for god's sake. Avvasi is not particularly long that it needs a split. Then redirect Q-VUE or something. Zlqq2144(Talk Contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zlqq2144 makes a point, will redirect to Avvasi — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelCapon (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin Original creator of article has changed to a redirect to the main company. This is probably the best solution. That article needs some work but has a better chance of demonstrating notability. May close as moot, redirected by article creator. As nominator: Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2011 (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.