Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online reading

:{{la|Online reading}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Online reading}})

First of all, the article's name doesn't fit the what the article actually covers, which appears to be scanlations. However, we already have an article on scanlations, poorly written as it may be. Based on the title, I would think the article is about reading text online, whether it be online newspapers, online books, online magazines, blogs, social media, forums, etc. But are there any differences between reading online vs. reading on a printed medium to differentiate "online reading" from general reading? How is reading things online any different from reading things on printed media or an e-reader like the Kindle?

Second, the article focuses entirely on scanlations, which are illegal translations of copyrighted manga and other comics. But we already have an article about that subject, as poorly written and sourced as it may be. Any information about scanlation "aggregator" websites should be incorporated into that article with the appropriate sources.

And finally, the article is full of original research, speculation, and downright excuse making. Nothing in the article is verifiable against a reliable sources. On top of that, the article reads as if supporting "aggregator" websites. The " Legal issues" sections merely makes excuses as to why these "aggregator" websites which engage in copyright violations are "OK" to use. In short, it's really nothing more than someone's personal essay. —Farix (t | c) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

:* Comment Please show where this article focuses entirely on scanlations, which are illegal translations of copyrighted manga and other comics. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

::* The article has been entirely rewritten by Colonel Warden since the AfD tag was placed on it. When Farix nominated it for deletion, it was entirely about scanlations, but now it is not at all about scanlations. Calathan (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

: Agree. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, there are differences between reading online and in traditional formats. This is a notable topic and so I have made a start upon developing it. I agree that we don't need the material about manga piracy under this title but that may be resolved by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Keep The changes made by Colonel Warden resolve my issues with the original article. The new material added by Colonel Warden deal with the topic and are, IMO, OK for a stub article. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I've read news articles about how online reading is changing the market place. Some of the best selling books are available online only, and usually sell for less than printed books. This has changed how things are done. More books can be published now, it not costing people anything to put their work out there, and they don't need the approval of anyone. Having some information about manga/comic piracy in the article would be nice. Some big names in the industry have stated that they started selling their work in an online format as soon as they release the printed version in their home country, to cut down on internet piracy. Just as piracy of television episodes forced companies to adapt and allow legal viewing of their programs online with ads to defeat the loss of an audience. Dream Focus 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Wow, this has changed completely. Back when it first came up here, I skimmed it, decided it was a blatant delete case and so blatant there was no point in !voting; but this version is nothing of the sort.

:It's kind of vague and overlaps with ebook articles, and I can't help but suspect there's an article on the general topic already (possibly under a name to do with 'hypertext'?), but still, not worth deleting. Merging, perhaps, if we could find the right target. --Gwern (contribs) 15:45 7 May 2011 (GMT)

: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.