|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Start-class)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2012. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.|
Hi User:Mr. Stradivarius.Qupzilla is a very good browser available to Linux users. Especially it is written in Qt and make use of Webkit which brings excellent features. It has a good performance also gained considerably acknowledge of variety of linux users. Check google search result and you will see more.
I must say that I cannot accept the opinion of your comment at my user page where you said you didn't find any source about it in Google books and Google news. For a web browser, which is just a computer program, doesn't need to be covered by a document service ( Google books) or a news service ( Google news) to prove itself. It is particularly true for an open-sourced program. Please do search for "Arora Browser" or "rekonq" in google news, where i couldn't find much more media coverage on those two similar browsers. It is true that Qupzilla has much little coverage in Google books compared to the latter two, but it must to be pointed out that most coverage of Arora and rekonq is from popular books or linux magazines also, as you may see, nearly half of the results are sourced from Wikipedia. :) So please be a little more patient.
I wrote this page because I wanted to broaden its acknowledgement to more users who have been waited too long to have such a light-weighted Qt based Webkit web browser. If articles about newly-born open-source projects should be slashed in such a moment it would be a dilemma to those open-source projects. So if you think it is inappropriate to write such an article please tell me more reasons. Thanks.
Hi User:Dici, Is it possible to rename page to "QupZilla"? It is the exact name, so it would be better to have it correct here on Wikipedia.
- I am sorry I gave the wrong name. I checked its website and you was right. However I am not an autoconfirmed user yet. I'll request a move right now. Thanks. Dici (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the requested move section, for two reasons: one, it looks like an obvious move, so I will do it myself; and two, I've just nominated the page for deletion, and it wouldn't make much sense to have two discussions about it at once - and I'm pretty sure that the deletion discussion should take priority. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- P.s. Normally I would avoid doing things like this, but I only saw the requested move discussion after I nominated the article - it was unfortunate timing. Sorry for the inconvenience. Also, I've moved the page for you now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)