Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuPDF


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

MuPDF

 * – ( View AfD View log )

spam with no real claim to notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:N. prod reconstruction. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Extra strong keep, with a dash of cinnamon. Is   enough for you? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those sources provide significant coverage of MuPDF, all are about Artifex Software's lawsuit and just mention very briefly what MuPDF is. This lawsuit is just a news event and Wikipedia is not the news. Any balanced article written from these sources would not be about MuPDF but would be a coatrack for the lawsuit. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any spam.--Oneiros (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You disagree with one word in my nomination, how about the rest? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alessandra's sources. The article has some WP:V problems on account of its dependence on unreliable sources. The Palm lawsuit is probably what this article should be primarily about. – Pnm (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: apart from multiple references (including those by Alessandra Napolitano), this is one of only four FLOSS PDF libraries out there. This would be enough on its own. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Being one of four FLOSS PDF libraries does not make something notable, WP:ITSNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, because we do have enough sources for confirmation.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡   23:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability is more than just existance. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Inferred keep, being a contributor to MuPDF I believe that it may make sense to describe the open source library which SumatraPDF is based upon. SumatraPDF itself is not proposed for deletion so by inference I feel that MuPDF should not be either. More over the library has been ported, as described in the article, to a lot of devices and linux distributions so from that perspective there may also be incentive to keep it. Finally I did find a reference through duffbeerformes scholarly links that may at least increase the notability of the page: I have refrained from editing informational content of the page, though I did add the logo and the reference to the XPS software category, and so I leave it up to you guys to hash out whether MuPDF is notable enough and to include that link. Sebras (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, because MuPDF is relevant enough to be in package systems of Ubuntu, gentoo, and Arch Linux (to name only three). It is also offered for Windows by various Freeware websites and mentioned in the free PDF reader campaign of the Free Software Foundation. I think interested users should find a Wikipedia page about this. --G8w (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. MuPDF has been gaining popularity in recent months on various mobile OS platforms (Android, iOS and Windows Phone) due to its lightweight, yet powerful nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.145.144.134 (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2011 (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.