Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookbuddi


 * 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 delete. --Sam Blanning(talk) 03:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Bookbuddi
Non-notable shareware, does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE. Prod removed by author Wildthing61476 12:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No claim of notability, or third party mention anywhere I can find. The articles authors talk page states it his his software, seems to be promotion to me. HighInBC 13:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless there is a similar or better product already in wiki. Is there not a place or category in wiki for new or unproven ideas? Articles should have a link to pages of reduced Wikiquette, links, to reduce deletion disputes. Google is about finding controlled, machine-generated, web pages while wiki should be about finding freely generated, human information. The universe is composed of 3 basic elements; Finite Matter and Energy and Infinite Information, which is all what space, time and life are about. Wayp123 08:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not to be used to show off "new or unproven" ideas. Verification and reliable sources are needed to show why this software is notable. Wildthing61476 12:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Even if Wikipedia were for new and unproven ideas, I see nothing particularly new there.   Xtifr tälk 08:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You can only say that if you have downloaded and tried bookbuddi? Wayp123 08:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that the article is lying? Or merely woefully incomplete? And have you compared it to what comes with Debian?  In either case, the question is irrelevant.  Notability is the issue here, and bonzi bookithingie ain't.  Xtifr tälk 11:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Point me to a specific program that comes with Debian? Wayp123 12:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep  It does not matter, at least I can assume that there is nothing better out there. Wayp123 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep  This whole thing seems a bit childish, we all having this dumb Keep Delete argument. I am going to tell my mommy ;( Wayp123 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You don't have to keep voting keep, one vote per person will do nicely. By the way, I noticed that you spammed a number of articles with links to BookBuddi, and that is frowned upon. Wildthing61476 15:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did it to make the articles more complete. Wayp123 15:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is actually considered linkspam, not "completing the article". Wildthing61476 15:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever! Wayp123 16:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have struck out duplicates. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Wikipedia is one of the best sites on the web, especially with bookbuddi, links and all. I may just be dreaming, maybe someday, some of the long articles, with large picture illustrations, could also be downloadable in bookbuddi format.
 * Comment Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy, one man one vote does not apply here. Bookbuddi is in a fight to the death of its life on Wikipedia. Rules are exposed to interpretation and change. Wayp123 12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So if Bookbuddi is deleted (which let's be honest, it WILL), what does this mean? Wildthing61476 14:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A great loss for Wikipedia and mankind. Wayp123 14:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As you said above, "whatever". Get your program recognised outside of Wikipedia and then maybe it can have an article. Wikipedia is for documenting already-established things, not for promoting new and unknown things. Please understand that trying to promote your software here is considered an abuse of the encyclopedia, not a valuable addition. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 22:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

while (Rules_and_more_rules_and_too_many_rules>1 || other_bad_factors)

{
 * Freedom--,Knowledge--;
 * Chaos++;

}//Wayp123 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you disagree with Wikipedia having rules, but it's necessary in order for it to be an encyclopedia instead of a marketing platform. In fact, by restricting the domain of Wikipedia's information, there is greater concentration of useful knowledge and less chaos. Freedom doesn't enter into it, because Wikipedia isn't your or anyone else's personal playground—we are guests here with no special right to freedom. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew I wasn’t going to win but I had to try. I am also still waiting for a response from Xtifr. --Wayp123 09:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point you're unlikely to get a response. You might have better luck asking them at their Talk page. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks and bye for now.--Wayp123 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It is not currently notable.  There are plenty of speech synthesizing programs.  Bejnar 03:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.