Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco 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 merge to Ecosia. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Browser

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

Fails WP:NSOFT: no secondary sources and none that I could find. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~and Redirect~~ to Ecosia. The only hit I could find was [this], from La Stampa in Italian. But it looks like Ecosia, the parent app and main feature, is better known. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're aware but when an article is Merged it's automatically redirected after (The only time it is Merged and then Deleted is if we choose that option) :) –Davey2010^Talk 21:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, that's what I wanted to know. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse me, but I'm newbie in Wikipedia editing. Does it absolutely impossible to get the article published without any secondary source references? Devunion (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi, Devunion, and welcome. Yes, it really is hard to get a separate article published with no secondary sources whatsoever. For the reasons, see Why we have these requirements. Basically we want to be sure that what we write is reliable and verifiable, and the best way to do that is to base it on reliable secondary sources. This is especially so for separate articles. But that's not the only way to add information to the encyclopedia. If you can improve an existing article, you can often add the information there. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ecosia - non notable software, The Ecosia article isn't perfect so imho Merging would be a better solution. –Davey2010^Talk 20:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ecosia, per above; subject alone does not meet notability requirements. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ecosia - as above, no significant RS coverage to establish notability of this browser independent of the parent project. Dialectric (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2015 (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.