Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rekonq (4th 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Rekonq
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. I did a Google search and all I found is some posts about new versions. No sources discuss this web browser as significant. Also, I believe that being part of KDE does not mean that it is notable and should have its own Wikipedia article.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: this article had three prior AfDs, was deleted twice, undeleted once, and underwent two DRVs. Everything that could have been said about it and its sourcing has already been said. I'm sure the nom meant well in nominating this (on his 75th edit to the project), but at this point, any further discussion about this article is pointless, if not disruptive. I get it; sourcing is marginal. There are good arguments both for and against keeping it. It also exists on wiki in 18 other languages, and will likely be recreated here again anyway. I don't often do this, but can we just leave this one alone? Owen&times; &#9742;  00:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All three previous nominations were in 2010 when the browser was actively developed. But in 2014 the development stopped and now the project is dead, it became apparent that it has no prospects and I think now it isn't used as default browser anywhere. Given this information and that many arguments for keeping this article in the previous nominations were in the spirit of "this browser is default in major distro" or "probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active development", I think the further discussion is not entirely pointless.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Sure, it was a part of KDE and the default browser for a distro, but I don't think it's notable. It never went anywhere and hasn't seen any notable activity in a decade. I also checked if another semi-obscure KDE browser, Angelfish, had a page and it doesn't, which makes me think this shouldn't either. You could make the argument that it was notable at one point, but anymore I'm not so sure. It's also been nominated for deletion on KDE's own wiki due to being abandoned. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am leaning delete but per OwenX, I have read through the previous AfDs and the DRVs andbased on those (yes, all in 2010), I think we need to at least discuss the sourcing. The project may be dead now, but notability is permanent. If it was notable in 2010 then it is notable as a historic item despite being essentially dead now. Having said that, source discussion is largely absent from the AfDs, so looking at them now, using numbering in what is currently the latest revision for brevity:
 * 1) Project page. Primary, not independent.
 * 2) KDE announce page. Primary, not independent.
 * 3) Blog. Self published. Not RS, not independent, Primary.
 * 4) KDE project license. Primary, not independent.
 * 5) LinuxBSDos review. Secondary. Review is gone and domain appears hijacked but the ref contains a quote, yet the mention appears trivial.
 * 6) Kubuntu.org. Primary, not independent.
 * 7) Kubuntu archive. Primary, not independent.
 * 8) AdamBlog. Primary, self published, not independent.
 * 9) projects.kde.org - Primary, not independent.
 * 10) AdamBlog. Primary, self published, not independent.
 * So in summary there is one old secondary source that might be retrievable through the webarchive but appears to be trivial. If we admit it, though, we are still not at WP:GNG. It probably never did meet GNG, but we should be looking to see if it made any kind of impact. Searching, I found reviews like this: but that is a submitted review, so won't be reliable and that seems to be a general problem. It gets mentioned in a number of books talking about Linux distros, such as this one, but this one is typical in saying little more than that it has a user agent switcher. I thought Logiciel pour le World Wide Web was going to do the trick and then saw it was sourced to Wikipedia! Other books failed to turn anything up. This paper looks at reverse engineering the browser , but the significance of this browser is not really demonstrated there. Rekonq is chosen because that was the browser of a TOR user investigated by the FBI and who was de-anonymised using a technique described in the paper. The fact that rekonq was used is just chance and nothing there would allow an encyclopaedic article to be written. So, after spending a good deal of time on this one, I cannot say I think this software was ever independently notable. However, I have left the !vote unsaid at this point as we have a few more days. If anyone can provide secondary sources showing it was independently notable, I would be happy to keep the page. Otherwise it's a delete (or merge to KDE).


 * Delete: failing WP:NSOFT and given sources above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2023 (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.