Deletion of QutIM (3rd nomination)

Comment: as non-notable software, and given the history of recreation, break out the |salt
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT)

Comment: is the threat of a blog post supposed to make delete !voters quake in their boots and run away crying for mercy from the AFD? Until there are some references provided to back up Wikipedia:Notability|notability, this article will either be deleted or continue to face AFD. Stop crying censorship; if some reputable third-party sources are found the article can stay. |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the project is not obliged in any way to keep content just to prevent accusations of "censorship
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Recreation of deleted material and clearly non-notable. Forum postings and blogs are not evidence of notability. Fails  on all levels. I do not envy the admin who has to clear through all the ridiculously obvious meat puppetry going on above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Fails , no in-depth coverage in |reliable sources. The entries in XAKEP (journal) for instance are merely the contents of the free DVD that came with that journal issue. No coverage in the journal per se. The socks here are just grasping at straws
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: WP:NOTCENSORED|Wikipedia isn't censored, |just a vote, and |you like it.  I still have yet to see any policy cited in many of these keep !votes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JUSTAVOTE||WP:ILIKEIT)