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 moved to Wikipedia:TomeRaider and tagged as historic. bd2412 T 00:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TomeRaider[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)

Tagged for notability since 2014. No refs in the article. Before showing nothing. Szzuk (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TomeRaider was notable in a Wikipedia context, as it was the platform for the first offline Wikipedia reader, and the only one for years. I doubt many people still use it. See [1]. I am not sure why deletion is the preferred way to deal with topics that lost notability over the years, a state that every piece of software will arrive at sooner or later. A template that says "this article is kept for historic reasons", would be my preference. Erik Zachte (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware it used to be a reader for WP. I think of it much like a bot here on WP - it is a tool that isn't inherently notable. If refs appear I will withdraw, if not it could be converted into some kind of WP page maybe. Szzuk (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace shift or IAR? - it's a very un-google-friendly name, but various searches didn't come up with any good secondary sources. Any German BEFORE checker could check I and google translate didn't miss anything there. Obviously this is worth retaining for its internal historical worth. This can either be done by shifting its namespace. I also think it has a broader worth to readers - I'm not big on my IAR in AfD, but since it's an internal wikipedia area, a good case could be made for our OR being more permissable etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia: namespace per above. Cannot find SIGCOV. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 01:58, 13 January 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.