This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
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)
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)