Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick Key

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 - crz crztalk 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Key

an unnotable software Gravity^Talk 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "an unnotable software"

Because you personally do not use it? That is hardly a reason. This program is widely used, and is the most popular Open Source application in its class. This type of application is designed for people who use multiple languages, and has a target audience that probably doesn't include you. Nathanaeljones 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Xe didn't express xyr personal opinion. That's simply a guess on your part. Our notability criteria for software can be found at WP:SOFTWARE. Uncle G 02:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and few more thoughts. Quick Key has been translated into two languages already (Turkish is still pending), and Portuguese is on the way. It has been included in computer magazines, recognized by the Unicode Consortium, and has been discussed on countless blogs. Nathanaeljones 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create this article, but I find it a better use of kilobytes than many other articles I have come across. Nathanaeljones 12:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Vegaswikian 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Useful information Nathanaeljones 12:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 01:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. --⁪froth^{T C} 01:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Scepia 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nathanael Jones is the creator of the software, even if he didn't write the article. There are very few independent mentions of the software, and I rather suspect that the Unicode list is very inclusionist, possibly completist. However, it seems useful enough, and I suspect it won't be too long before someone important does review it, provided it works. Argyriou (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable through non-trivial independent sources. --Wafulz 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any non-trivial sources after a few searches. --Sopoforic 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Ronbo76 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but without prejudice if notability can be established in the future. As of now, however, it seems it cannot be. Seraphimblade 05:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 07:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree current article lacks independent sources establishing notability per WP:SOFT. --Shirahadasha 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why the rush to delete? It's a page for software and just needs making npov Xanucia 13:03, 5 January 2007 (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.