Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RefNavigator


 * 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. Fram (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

RefNavigator

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Non-notable software. Sadly, WP:CSD does not apply to software, but there are no claims of notability, no third-party reliable sources, and no press. My notability tag was removed without explanation, and it's ineligible for a prod (or G4 deletion) as an older version was already prodded, so I am going straight to AfD instead. David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for undoing the tag without explanation-- I'm new to WikiPedia and didn't notice there is an comment textbox until now :( Actually RefNavigator is widely used in China althrough it's newly released. We can easily find lots of third-party Forums which are talking about RefNavigator. But those pages are all Chinese, I'm not sure whether it can be referenced from an English WikiPedia entry:


 * http://www.cnblogs.com/xiaotie/archive/2009/01/19/1374577.html
 * http://blog.csdn.net/ramacess/archive/2009/02/04/3861265.aspx
 * http://bbs.cenet.org.cn/dispbbs.asp?boardid=12625&ID=400010
 * http://bbs.bio668.com/read.php?tid-37062.html
 * http://quickbest.com.cn/discuz/thread-35277-1-11.html
 * --Otcdxn (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, since RefNavigator provides searching interface to Arxiv,it's a new and efficient way to access Arxiv. I think it's useful to keep the link in the "access" section of entry "Arxiv". --Otcdxn (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. References can certainly be in Chinese, but they should be to reliable sources, such as newspapers and magazines, not to blogs and forums. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  fr33k  man   -s-  15:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - No 3rd party RELIABLE references (blogs and self published content is not considered reliable nor 3rd party). No proof of notability. Delete as per WP:N, WP:V policy if article cannot provide such. - DustyRain (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This page smells like advertising, and is also unverifiable per above. Lets  drink Tea 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing in reliable sources that I can see. Those sites all appear to be fora, though I don't read Chinese, so I could easily be mistaken. --Ged UK (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources listed.--Sloane (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like spam, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. May not be used as much in English speaking countries, but it is in China.  EagleFan (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And your reliable sources that support that claim are...? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (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.