Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rekonq (3rd nomination)

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rekonq

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

Deleted in two separate AfDs this year; still no significant coverage in reliable sources, or any indication that it is notable in any way. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article have been restored after a deletion review : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_September_23

The main arguments are that :

- There is a few secondary source that did reviewed rekonq (see links at the end of the article).

- Rekonq is the default web browser in kubuntu 10.10 that will be out in one week.

So it can now be considered notable in some way. I guess the debate reduce to the question of how strict your view on notability is. Of course, Rekonq is far from being as big and well-known than firefox (and it will never be), but it can compare to other small open source web browser like arora (also based on Qtwebkit) or midori (also based on webkit). I can cite a few other web browser that have their wikipedia page and that can be compared to rekonq :

- Epiphany : older and better established than rekonq but still comparable in term of technology and audience.

- Uzbl : still alpha software, same type of technology than rekonq.

- Shiira : same type of technology than rekonq

- Stainless_(web_browser) : small technology preview commercial web browser. No secondary source.

I could continue the list (see List_of_web_browsers), but I think you get the point : you are applying strong notability criterion for Rekonq and at the same time there is similar or smaller projects, with no secondary source cited (may exist), that are in wikipedia. We need more consistency, otherwise it would feel like arbitrary or random removal decision. I believe that Wikipedia scope is not only to list the few top browsers, but gives information about the smaller ones. Even if their usage share is an order of magnitude smaller than those of the top browsers, they are used in real world in their specific "market" (users of KDE desktop in the case of Rekonq). Bzhb (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Still not seeing any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Default browser at least in Kubuntu and Chakra – two popular Linux distributions. That alone is enough. There are articles here for lesser useed, pre-alpha vaporware crap like GNU PDF and nobody challenges that. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it that the article still has not even one secondary reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stop making things up. There are sources in the article. Give proof why the sources are not reliable or shut up. Thank you. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to its secondary sources, this article has a primary source. As of the release of Kubuntu 10.10, rekonq is now the default web browser for a major Linux distro. Why is this article even a candidate for deletion? Oconnor663 (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.