Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuuxPlayer (2nd nomination)

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuuxPlayer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Non-notable software. No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS under either names. Linked reviews are unreliable download reposting websites (the PCWorld one is blatantly an ad, the CNET one is actually CNET Download which is unreliable) and searching finds nothing other than similar download reposting sites. Previously deleted in AfD but recreated. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the analysis by the nom. The Cnet link is a download link and the PC World link is now 404, so I can't tell how useful it is/was. I can only find download sites or reviews on non-RS. I don't see notability with what's given in the article or in my search. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little to be found online, let alone in reliable sources. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 23:00, 12 May 2024 (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.