Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBReader

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2015 July 30.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merger to List of E-book software. Ignoring the inappropriate attacks on the nominator, the nominator asks the proper policy question: are there reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. First, the subject is the reader so the links to the author (or his personal website or whatever) are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a source to market or advertise or spread the word for independent open source software; it's to report on software of that type if reliable sources have found it notable (i.e. we're going to behind the eight ball on certain subjects, so be it). The volume of coverage is irrelevant considering that sites like this are not independent reliable sources and the editors arguing solely on volume do not seem to have reviewed the material in line with policy. The evidence supports that the reader exists and it seems like it's mostly trivial mentions (one of many E-book reader software) but that's not the same as significant coverage. The history of the program itself (i.e. the material in the article that isn't going to be a mere trivial mention elsewhere) comes from (1) this source (a dead link to the software's website so not independent); (2) this source (a 10-year online bulletin board) and two links to GitHub which don't actually say a word. Removing that, we have a list of features based off two reviews [1][2] both of which only re-hash the same information that can be placed in a mention at the List of E-book readers page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to overturn to no consensus with original result retained per Deletion review. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 08:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep. At least 700 articles discuss it[3][4][5][6], Linux [7], print mags [8]; ships by default on several Vodafone, Chinese and Russian YotaPhone[9][10] devices; National Tréasure[11] ; surveillance self-defense [12][13][14]; engages in battle[15]. Endorsed by Free Software Foundation [16]; (primary but) other corps ship it[17], Toshiba [18], BeBook[19], Pocketbook[20], Pandigital[21], non-android vendors ship it by default as well[22] and a metric tonne of others; notable for being early in the Google game[23]. Notability is not established by sources provided in article, but by their mere existence elsewhere: wp:N. Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of these are mentions in lists (and some are not about the software at all), but two of them - [24] and [25] - are substantial reviews. That said, does anyone know of any policy that would make it possible to decide if two reviews makes a piece of software notable? I'm still tending toward merge, as I !voted before. LaMona (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews are helpful, not all there is to it. It is independently developed open source software, not a product of an OEM, nor coupled to an operating system vendor, yet ships in production on millions of devices around the globe. I know of no other open source software with a similar claim - at least in the realm of mobile; that in and of itself is quite notable. It is one of the few which isn't malware infested and spying on the user for corporate Gestapo; there is something to be said for Free Software Foundation and Electronic Frontier Foundation endorsements on those grounds as well. Stories about 3rd-party eBook readers don't exactly drive a lot of page views for the click-bait, advertising driven media. Software is somewhat niche area, open source even more so. You'll never see an article on something like GNU wget in the The New York Times for example. -- dsprc ^[talk] 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The large number of references for this open source tool speak for themselves.

I also strongly call for the permanent ban of people who call for the deletion of useful articles like this. To you wiki gnomes it seems like no big deal, but out here in the Real World it is well-known that this kind of **CRAP** attitude is what drives off the average person who originally just wanted to help wikipedia.

Yes, I am pissed about this. Deletion should not be a matter of "guilty until proven innocent", but for year after year after year, that's what I see here on wikipedia. Any random schmuck who is ignorant or who has an attitude, insists on deletion, and since careful wiki gnomes are rare in the general public, the motion usually carries. That's just wrong.

/rant

Deletion suggestions should begin with a cited indication that something is not notable, not with just a random unsupported claim that it is not notable. Dougmerritt (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.