Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IbisBrowser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. John254 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] IbisBrowser
Browser for mobile phones. Article written by user:IbisBrowser. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy Talk 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete I believe this is notable. We do have things like Internet Explorer on wikipedia, but IbisBrowser for now will have to wait. The second half the article is unreferenced and the article needs serious revision. The article has problems with jargon, reading like an advertisement in parts, and possible POV statements which could be removed. However I do have concerns with the user editing the article under the same name (IbisBrowser Talk} as the article which draws questions if the person is employeed by the company. Which could explain why it reads a little like an advertisement. The persons main contributions are to this article, which is a little more alarming. There has been a lot of work done on this article, however I don't think there is a significant amount of interest to make this notable. -Jahnx (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Article is referenced with multiple reliable sources attesting to its notablity. The user name of the creator makes no difference, judge the content for what its worth. Who cares about the intentions of the creator (horrors upon horrors, he wants to gain some sort of advantage from a Wikipedi article!). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Well referenced article. Never heard of it myself but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 14:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above Carter | Talk to me 16:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
