Talk:Qiqqa
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
Good morning - Qiqqa is indeed a product, but it is a free product that relates to multiple other reference management products in a similar space (e.g. citeulike, Mendeley, etc all in the reference management software template). I do not understand why our page is not allowed to participate like the others. We have several features that are unique to Qiqqa, which as more become available, we believe would be of encyclopaedic value - e.g. the use of OCR, PDF text exporting, document clustering, etc. Please reconsider the SpeedyDeletion. Thanks, Jimme Jimmejardine (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Jimmejardine, you should indicate how this is notable using references from reliable, third-party sources. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
My library blog is cited as a reference for the assertion that Qiqqa "allows researchers to work with thousands of PDFs". (Citation: Julie Swierczek, McKillop Library, Salve Regina University (2011-02-11). "Drowning in information". Retrieved 2011-02-23.) The blog post should not be used as justification; I wrote that part of the blog post using hyperbole. That is, I assume that Qiqqa would be useful for managing thousands of articles, but I was not stating a fact when I said so. I suspect that there are limits on the numbers of articles that one can use, depending on whether has a regular or premium account, and whether one is storing articles or just their metadata in the online space one is allotted on the Qiqqa website. I think that assertions about the number of articles that can be handled by the software should come from a more authoritative source than my blog post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswierczek (talk • contribs) 00:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Screenshot[edit]
Hey guys, I think the screenshot is too large, I can still discern some features ^^ But seriously, I think I'm not the only one who wonders why the person who put it there scaled it down so much. What's the interest in that!? I won't download and install the software just to update the screenshot, but if someone uses it, please do add one in a higher resolution. 2A02:1205:34EB:BD20:B093:37BA:100B:7637 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)