Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blisk (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 06:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Blisk (web browser)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As far as I can tell, the only notable source for this is Mashable. Hence, it currently fails WP:GNG. I did a quick search and didn't really find any sources more notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  23:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: A lot of the sources I found were press releases or overly promotional, but with the reviews from Mashable, Fossbytes and Softpedia, (both a little questionable but at least they have actual authors and ratings), and coverage of the data breach in Zdnet I think it can be kept. Weak keep because it only got coverage when it released and when it had a data breach and nothing really in between or after. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  19:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @StreetcarEnjoyer On 2 December 2023‎ the user Lotje has removed almost the whole article with lots of sources. I'm asking to revert the majority of changes. The software works and gets released constantly. Let's discuss on how to rewrite the features and press releases. Can you help with this? And85rew (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I am against including that content. The article does not need "features and press releases". The content that was removed is contrary to policy. I will remove it again if it's readded. If you have specific additions in mind, it's best to suggest them on the talk page. And if you have a conflict of interest, please disclose it. —Alalch E. 09:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why features are not needed? The features describe the software. The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome names the key features (User interface, Built-in tools, Desktop shortcuts and apps, Extensions, Speed, Security, Privacy). Why cannot this article list the features of the software? And85rew (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article will never be the way it used to be. The misuse of Wikipedia at this page has been put to an end. It lasted for a while, but that time has come and gone. Disclose your conflict of interest. See the edit history of the article where the reasons for removal are stated in the edit summaries. —Alalch E. 09:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The experienced editor Alalch E. is correct here. The article in its prior status was exclusively cited to primary sources and violated the Wikipedia guidelines of not being a blatant advertisement. Features listed in other web browser pages like Google Chrome and Firefox are (mostly) cited to independent, reliable sources, have enough coverage in independent sources, and were given by other editors who generally do not have a conflict of interest. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  22:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. In all likelihood, I find the initial flurry of coverage to be almost certainly based substantially or entirely on press kit, i.e. WP:CHURNALISM. The Fossbytes article is especially obvious, I mean hell, that second last sentence: You can go ahead and try our Blisk for Windows right now. Did they even bother paraphrasing the email they got before publishing it? The state of available sourcing is unacceptable, it fails independence requirements. Other, more exhaustive software directories (like, I don't know, Softpedia, where it's already at) may be an appropriate home for this, but Wikipedia is not that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: I'd like to change my vote. Frankly the sourcing available is bad and sourcing a web browser entirely to "it was released and had a data breach once" is not a good idea. All the sources not about the data breach do sound like press release churnalism, even the Mashable article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  23:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.