Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edbrowse (2nd nomination)

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. No third-party sources means deletion. The notability guidelines may or may not be deficient, but they are still applied. Sandstein 09:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edbrowse

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Previously deleted at AFD, article contains no independent third-party sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 13:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Found No (0) secondary sources for “Edbrowse", as shown here [1]. As such delete ShoesssS ^Talk 14:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are not finding better than forum postings. Absence of the WP:RS coverage which would be needed to overturn the previous AfD consensus. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Hi, this argument for Keep is from the edbrowse developers. We are hoping the edbrowse wikipedia page can be kept on the basis of the fact that edbrowse is in several code distributions or distros: Debian, Arch, FreeBSD, Ubuntu and MacPorts. We feel that for a software package this demonstrates corroboration by independent parties that edbrowse is in widespread use. Why? Distros have resource limitations and only want to include projects that have a user base. We have improved the wikipedia page with up-to-date references to the five package-search results pages. This demonstrates that edbrowse is included. Also, please compare the notability threshhold for Tinyproxy, which, like edbrowse, is free-and-open-source software that lists its distros in lieu of outside press coverage. Thank you. 69.228.171.29 (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry to say, that is the worst argument to make! It shows Conflict Of Interest. As such, DELETE. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can find no mention of it in "news" sources, but for comparison's sake, I can only find one news result (and that over a decade old) searching for "browser for the blind". It is my opinion that the notability guidelines are deficient if this program does not meet them. --Elijah (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the article and felt I’d typed man edbrowse by mistake. Complete lack of sources. This really isn’t the right sort of topic that should be put in a global encyclopedia, and the program isn’t going to vanish into thin air just because there’s no article here. I wonder why the developers think a presence here is important? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:22, 18 July 2018 (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.