Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quick TransLation

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just one of many firefox plugins; no evidence of notability. Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to (and possibly mention in) List of Firefox extensions. Unless someone can provide good rationale otherwise. ~EdGl ★ 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and please compare the notability of these two Firefox tools:

  Quick TransLation: 14,538 weekly downloads and 1,655,449 total downloads. (source: Mozilla)

  Smarter Wikipedia: 5,620 weekly downloads and 78,876 total downloads. (source: Mozilla)

  --Pah777 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I feel I should point out that, when browsing add-ons by weekly downloads, Quick TransLation comes in at top of the eighth page. So, whilst it is more notable than Smarter Wikipedia, as you so rightly point out, there are some 140 add-ons which are more popular that this one. I have no opinion on this deletion discussion. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Downloads do not determine notability. Also, just because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean this article passes the notability guideline and should be allowed to exist. Spiesr (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As it stands, the article has no reliable third party references to prove its notability. Therefore it must be deleted. If such proper reliable sources can be found I would reconsider my statement. Spiesr (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I see blog entries and whatbot, but no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Download counts do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no third party reliable sources to give notability. Download count doesn't not count. 16x9 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Compare again the notability of the two tools, assessed by a Google search:

  Quick TransLation: 14,300,000 results (source: Google)

  Smarter Wikipedia: 1,850,000 results (source: Google)

  --Pah777 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply We aren't discussing the state of other articles. The number of search results is not a replacement for coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are sources proof of notability: The 10 Best Extensions to Enhance Firefox, The 20 Best Firefox Plugins, 50 Best Firefox Extensions for Power Surfing, these lists include qtl. Also I do not see any reliable sources for the notability of Smarter Wikipedia, I will nominate it for deletion. --Pah777 (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources? Like the three at the bottom of that page? Be my guest. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have just added three reliable sources (as it seems enough) in the article, similar to that of the other article, but I can add more. (How stupid are the guidelines !) --Pah777 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) And three more now. Do you want more ? --Pah777 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do because all the ones you have are trivial and not reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Explain me seriously in what the sources in Smarter Wikipedia are more reliable of the ones I added. This is a joke. Only one source (Lifehacker) in this article has has an entry here. In Quick TransLation, there is already CHIP and Softpedia (twice more reliable sources) and I will add more soon. --Pah777 (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Again; other stuff exists is not a valid argument. Ironholds (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Just so you know, it is possible that the Smarter Wikipedia does not meet the guidlines for inclusion. If that is the case then it may be appropriate for that article to be disscussed in its own AFD at some point. However, the status of that article as no bearing on this discussion. Spiesr (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I will not spend my time adding sources on this article and arguing here, I have more serious things to do. I thought it was worth keeping this article, because it is the official translation tool of Firefox, so I thought it deserved an article here. But if you judge there are not enough reliable sources, delete it. --Pah777 (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Move it somewhere more appropriate. It is good info but it shouldn't stay here. HJMitchell You rang? 14:38, 2 May 2009 (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.