Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBReader: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:33, 10 July 2015

FBReader

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

expired PROD that was recreated, but no new sources were added. the sources for the article include internet forums and revisions on GitHub. I challenge the notability of the subject. Shii (tock) 09:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no new sources were added
— Shii

Shii is making a attempt to mislead with untruths.
FBReader is essential for epub reading on Linux, only other choice is CoolReader for non-KDE

FBReader & CoolReader are more android focused.

~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the links you've offered, to Sourceforge and various wikis, relate to this discussion of sourcing. Shii (tock) 23:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many new sources were added to FBReader as references, User:Shii saying they were not is UNTRUE ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_E-book_software. I couldn't find any quality sources (I mainly looked for independent reviews), but did find it in various lists of ebook reading software, so that seems to be where it belongs. I would actually like to see a non-list article on this topic, but so far there is only an article that covers devices - E-reader. LaMona (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search site:the-digital-reader.com FBReader will show a lot of independent reviews and general press coverage of FBReader~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"the digital reader" is a blog, and blogs are not considered reliable sources. We need a source like a newspaper or magazine. LaMona (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a better sourced article on E-book software than: Okular, CoolReader, STDU Viewer, Blio, and Kitabu, yet there is an attempt to repeatedly delete this one. This is an open source project with proprietary uses by its creators, who seem to want to close-source it.~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to delete the Kitabu article as well. Both that article and this one lack reliable sources and are of dubious notability. Shii (tock) 09:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's notable, don't be ridiculous. This is what I hate about Wikipedia, every time I turn around someone is trying to delete a perfectly reasonable and useful article.

I came to this article just now because I'm doing research on EPUB readers, and this is one of the few in existence. And of course this thing that I turn to for valuable information is up for deletion.

Why don't you go delete the article on English or World War II or something. Dougmerritt (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could be doing research on minor Star Wars characters, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article for every such character. Shii (tock) 10:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 Why don't you go delete the article on English or World War II or something.
 [[User:Dougmerritt|Dougmerritt]] ([[User talk:Dougmerritt|talk]]) 06:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
+* You could be doing research on minor Star Wars characters, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article for every such character. [[User:Shii|Shii]] [[user_talk:Shii|(tock)]] 10:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)