Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tor Browser Bundle

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 ~~(or keep)~~. It may be beneficial to both articles if this is integrated into the main Tor article. Shii (tock) 17:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tor Browser Bundle

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

Poorly referenced and seems to be written in a promotional manner M.Jormungand (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm weird I thought April fools already passed long time ago, okay on serious note your reasoning is kind-of-biased, then how about other editors opinion? You just using opinion as basing for this nom for deletion, more rather you didn't point out why it's seems like a promotional page, do not use word "seems" when you nominating for deletion, it shows you are unsure about this nomination, means you have weak basis for this nomination, also the explanation inside the article is good enough for me, from notability it has considerable amount or result on internet, I seriously don't know what other reason for this deletion other than your baseless opinion.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 01:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and Redirect I am a contributor to the article, and it isn't promotional in the slightest. We can either expand upon it (which would not be very hard) or create a new section for it at Tor (anonymity network). What really needs to be done is to delete two articles that currently redirect to Tor Browser Bundle, which are PortableTor and Portable Tor. 92.78.234.161 (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete or redirect to Tor (anonymity network). Two reasons that seem to make this a pretty cut and dry decision:
1. When you go to download Tor from the official site, what you download by default IS Tor Browser Bundle.
2. The ENTIRE article duplicates content available at Tor (anonymity network) (so nothing to merge). Not only does the Tor article have a near copy of the Bundle article's lead, but outside of the lead the bundle article doesn't even mention the bundle, instead talking about Tor generally. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that there is still a good amount of information that can be added about Tor Browser. The Tor article is going to become quite long, and I think it's going to need to be split into its own article eventually. (I think the same thing about the Tor Project needing its own article eventually.) Why not work on it now as a separate article and save the trouble or merging and then splitting it again? If we redirect to Tor, would you support deleting the Portable Tor and PortableTor articles? 94.222.75.188 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search turns up no RS coverage apart from this brief PC World review [1]. The rest of the search results are incidental mentions in articles that are about Tor, download sites, and other non-RS links; these don't establish notability for this software.Dialectric (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above comments. This article should grow. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I can tell the entirety of the keep arguments are: "it should grow," "there are lots of ghits," and what looks like an ad hominem at the top. Meanwhile there's no further explanation for how this passes the GNG, why this is a separate topic from Tor, why we should keep an article that is entirely duplicate material, or even a suggestion for specific ways it could possibly grow that wouldn't be just at home on the Tor article (i.e. what parts of it could grow that wouldn't make sense to also write at the Tor article, thus continuing the duplication). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, it's just I hate baseless nom for AfD, he doesn't explain further about why it's should be deleted. line like these "Poorly referenced and seems to be written in a promotional manner" is not helpful, people who comment will left being clueless what they should do or give to comment or to improve the articles, I wish every people who nominating something for deletion give proper and detailed explanation before nominating something for AfD.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 18:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're still criticizing how preposterous this AfD is without making a single argument for why it should be kept or responding to any of the quite obvious and routine reasons for deletion. Saying there's Just because it isn't "promotional" doesn't mean it should be kept. Is the entirety of your argument resting on the desire to punish what you see as a procedural misstep? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not desire I just don't want this kind of things happen again, I've been tagging AfD MfD on hundreds wikis and I can't accept en.wp to be as lower as small wikis, we should follow procedure, and reject any bad request. Also for "promotional" it's depend on how people sees them, for me it's not even promotional.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 06:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, so to clarify you don't have a reason to keep other than that the nominator didn't do a good job, and won't be responding to any of the other reasons for deletion other than the claim that it's "promotional?" --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the Tor article containing fully-developed information on the Tor Browser would be too long. Explaining Tor Browser's security improvements over basic Firefox should be in a Tor Browser article, but not necessarily a Tor article. 94.222.74.36 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to you how you perceive my comment, not that it gonna change anything, administrator will decide this consensus.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete or Merge I agree with user: Rhododendrite. This article shouldn't stand alone and is better merged Sic Semper Tyrannis82 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to pass the General notability guideline due to these reliable sources mentioning the topic at length.

Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should be renamed Tor Browser as per Change Tor Browser Bundle to Tor Browser in package strings, download pages, and docs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.222.103.2 (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Tor (anonymity network): separate notability of the browser is highly questionable. This browser basicly is Firefox with security fixes, distributed as official way to access Tor. Even if there was enough material to satisfy WP:GNG, there is definitely not enough subject to cover. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree That's not only Firefox fork, its bundled with a complete version of Tor client. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 09:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't exactly Firefox fork – it is custom build of one of the Firefox official flavors, bundled with Tor button extension and Tor client. A single paragraph is sufficient to provide complete encyclopedic coverage. Probably another one for reception, albeit currently there isn't much worth mention. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources. No notability. Tor is notable. Firefox is notable. A fork of Firefox which implements Tor is not. At best, deserves a short mention in Tor, and a redirect there. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But... just take a look at the Category:Web browsers based on Firefox, besides - Tor Browser implements many other things like NoScript, HTTPS Everywhere... --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 12:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basicly WP:ALLORNOTHING. FWIW most articles in that category probably should also be merged or deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Merge into Tor article. While it does achieve the GNG, it does so barely, and any additions to the browser will ultimately be backed up into the Tor article anywho. Tutelary (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the Tor Browser can be encapsulated in the Tor article. Please see the design document. The Tor community takes measures to help blocked people get access to Tor Browser. The Tor Project takes measures to help users ensure Tor Browser integrity. There is also the software history to consider. All of this would clutter the Tor main article. 92.78.113.183 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one short paragraph (all it takes to cover TBB in encyclopedic manner) won't clutter anything. Given that TBB is the default download of Tor project, it can't possibly clutter. Given that beyond Onion router itself the package only contains tuned and bugfixed Firefox with pre-loaded extention, this paragraph wouldn't even be large enough to influence the article flow in significant way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow why a list of all the things the Tor Project does with a browser an argument against including the browser in the Tor Project article. What people are doing is helping people to get access to Tor, not the Tor Browser. What if they stopped development of the Tor Browser last week (or tomorrow) and embraced some new "Tor Chrome Private" based on Chrome? What if the Tor Browser were abandoned by its community? Would it still be notable? These reasons based on the Tor community's involvement with the Tor Browser wouldn't even apply any longer. So would the mere fact that The Tor Project had at one point encouraged use of this browser be justification for a stand-alone article? Seems like delete would be pretty uncontroversial at that point because notability is not temporary. It's software developed by the Tor community that serves only to connect people to Tor and would be forgotten if the Tor community decided another browser were better. Thus even if there's press coverage enough to say this is notable, these reasons are exactly why notability itself doesn't justify a stand-alone article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is that there is much more to Tor Browser than people here are implying, certainly more than a paragraph. The design and history alone would make a nice article. Notability isn't even a question. Just because Tor Browser is the recommended implementation for most people does not make it synonymous with Tor. Tor is a client as well as a network, and a complex topic. Most of the Tor Project stuff should be split into its own article too. 92.78.113.183 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2014 (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.