Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qpdfview

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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qpdfview

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

Article lacks any third-party reliable sources. The sources are all either primary sources, WordPress blogs, open wikis, or distros that are only showing that it's in their repositories with no significant context whatsoever to show notability, and these aren't independent sources either. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said at least twice at Talk:Qpdfview, if this is the standard to be applied, then it isn't being applied uniformly. evince, okular, and xpdf are all highly notable pieces of open-source PDF software, used by millions of people in the the real world, worldwide, for free. In the virtual world of wiki, they are apparently not notable. Though they are older than qpdfview, they also arguably fail WP:NSOFT, as I'm sure do many other open-source software projects. If qpdfview is deleted, so should the rest. If you do delete those articles, then wikipedia has lost sight of its roots and gone rather insane. If you don't, ya'll a bunch of hypocrites. I have yet to receive any response to the above argument, and I'm getting a little tired of pointing this out.

The solution? Leave qpdfview as is. Inclusion in a wide variety of different software OS repositories is a sign of independent notability in the real world. Inclusion standards for many repos are very strict. Some here don't seem to understand that. Are they perhaps unfamiliar with how open-source software works? Most certainly, WP:NSOFT is flawed when it comes to open-source software. Perhaps WP:NSOFT should be nominated for deletion? It's arguably far less notable than most open-source software projects. MartinSpacek (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is misdirected.

This discussion is about qpdfview, not Evince, Okular or xpdf. Please, stay focused.
If you have problems with WP:NSOFT, you should go to its talk page and discuss the matter there. Still, without coverage in secondary reliable sources the subject has huge problem with WP:V and is not deemed worth inclusion anyway.
You ignore the difference between usefulness and notability. Even most useful software may not be worth encyclopedic coverage.
Regargding repos: Windows is much more widely used OS then conventional Linux distros, and inclusion into Windows distribution is much more difficult. Does that mean that every piece of software included with Windows is inherently notable?

Using such arguments in deletion discussion is not helpful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 23 June 2014 (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.