Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FullReader

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. Sandstein 10:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FullReader[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non-notable app with no mention in reliable sources. I suspect this as advertising as the article creator's other edits are mainly regarding adding this app in the see also sections of notable software, and adding non-notable sites as references. Daiyusha (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a non-notable app and it does not cite any reliable sources according to wikipedia's guidelines. RandewP (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks sufficient coverage in reliable independant secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Meszzy² (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current sourcing is problematic - there are reviews on blogs, reviews on sites that openly charge for hosting reviews, trivial coverage in listicles, but nothing that would approach the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. I had a look for better sourcing, but didn't find any. So, fails WP:NCORP, delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~While~~ I agree with your evaluation~~, I note that software falls under WP:GNG and not WP:NCORP, unless the article covers the software's parent company.~~ — Newslinger talk 06:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a talk page discussion, I think Girth Summit's interpretation of WP:NCORP is correct, and FullReader does fall under the scope of WP:NCORP. It's strange that software is held to different notability standards depending on whether it's developed by a corporation/organization or an individual/unknown author, but this appears to be what the guideline indicates. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 8 April 2019 (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.