Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qwt

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qwt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Custom set of widgets for Qt, no independent sources to support notability. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no doubt this fails GNG and is not notable for a page. these are GUI components meant for programs with technical data to display in applications compatible with Qt. No one is writing about these as independently notable. The question is only whether this is an aspect that should be mentioned on the Qt page. The widgets are compatible with Qt and thus extend the functionality, and might deserve a mention on the Qt page under a heading such as extension libraries. If so, Merge with Qt would be the right outcome. Yet I don't see much mergeable content here, nor a good reason to list such extensions on that page. Wikipedia is not a programming manual. I have thought back and forth between delete and merge, but when it comes down to it, if the Qt page were extended in this way, we would not be starting with this content on Wikipedia. There is nothing here that is not on Sourceforge, and such a new section on that page would need to look at all such extensions anyway. Merge is not there for dumping indiscriminate information on other pages. The encyclopaedia is not improved by it, so I have settled on delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Expressing agreement with above comment. Does not meet notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2023 (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.