Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arora (web browser)

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arora (web browser)

No assertion of notability or any third-party in-depth review. This article was used in an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS edit summary to support notability of Dooble during its AfD. Article has been translated into numerous other wiki-languages, but none of them are any better...really literally translated, with no additional info or WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliably-published third-party press concerning this product. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, no assertion of notability, all the stuff I saw was web fora and blogs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable light-weight browser. Also see here. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of those actual in-depth secondary/teriary-source reports? I spot-checked and the non-primary-refs I saw were only blogs ("mentioned in lots of random blogs" doesn't together make a reliable source--need one that is renowned enough to carry weight) and directory-style lists (inclusion in various distros just means one person cares enough to write the package). DMacks (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing them, I agree that they look like web fora and blogs, I didn't see anything that represented a reliable, secondary source (and a couple were dead). Notability must be demonstrated, not asserted. What specific link(s) on that page is/are the reliable, independent, secondary source(s) that are required to demonstrate and pass WP:N? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arora is just starting to get known. It is about as known as the Midori browser (Midori_(web_browser)) which is not up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.11.220 (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is premature, particularly given recent interest in the browser as a lighter-weight alternative. Most mentions are in tech or productivity blogs like Lifehacker and DownloadSquad, but those sites have considerable readership. The article needs work, but deletion is inappropriate at this time. Peter (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As this is an upcoming engine with potential, it would be usefull to keep. Nevertheless the artikle realy needs a bit of work as of supported web standards. - 84.61.15.205 (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2009 (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.