Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABrowse

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. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ABrowse

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

This software lacks independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Attempts to merge it to the parent OS have been rejected, so it should be deleted, as it fail WP:N. Pcap ping 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has media based sources Dew Kane (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "media-based sources" are Syllable (the developers), and two stories from OSNews, which may be reliable but weigh in at only a paragraph each and can hardly be considered "significant coverage". - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage for this software and the sources in the article are insufficient per my reply to Dew Kane above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~keep~~delete. Per DustFormsWords's reply to Drew Kane. --Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?? Sorry? My comment to Dew Kane was a rebuttal of his Keep position on the basis that the sources were either not independent or not significant. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering your side of the issue, really the other "ABrowse" is a proxy (Old lockergnome article)... --Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lockergnome's not a reliable source either; it takes user-submitted content with no editorial oversight. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But this proxy is poof. Only ads remain of the domain, abrowse.com. --Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 02:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC) - But let's get back on topic. I go with a weak delete.[reply]

Delete No coverage beyond brief mentions, and most of that not in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2010 (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.