Deletion of POLQA

Comment: Those of us who frequent AfD get used to the appearance of red-linked posters. Whether these are Socks ( or genuine fans drafted in for the occasion is sometimes moot. What does matter is this is not a vote by numbers, but a discussion of the article's compliance with Wikipedia's working procedures. I feel this one fails . There's many a slip possible when committees are involved - and when financial restraints are commonplace
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I believe this discussion slowly drifts away from its original topic and we should restrict ourselves to the purpose of this page. The above mentioning of  ,  and  is purely speculative, not helping Wikipedia and even offensive. Let's stop that. The only thing we discuss is  and as far as this is concerned, the "red-linked" contributor made some very valuable comment (and I don't mind if somebody is concerned of his/her privacy on the internet, as long as the content of the comment is valuable). Also, where would we end up if we did see google as our only source to verify notability? Keeping in mind the many sources mentioned and coming from that specific industry, I can only confirm my above statement that this article is really notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK||WP:MEAT||WP:CIVIL||WP:N)

Comment: to the remarkably uniform do-not-delete votes: Searching Google for "ITU-T Recommendation P.863" gives exactly one hit, and that hit is our Swissqual article. That's why I removed the reference to it, it just doesn't yet exist. You are right that "P.OLQA" gives ITU-T results (I missed that, sorry, my bad), and I am sure you're discussing it internally. The important question is, is it being discussed anywhere ''outside'' ITU-T, and can you give a |reliable source for that? I found http://www.ditechnetworks.com/learningcenter/whitepapers/WP_PESQ_Limitations.pdf this and http://portal.etsi.org/stq/workshop2007presentations/Cote.pdf this when searching for P.OLQA but both documents do not go beyond a passing mention of the subject
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Agree that WP:CRYSTAL is a factor, also lack of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)