Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edbrowse


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Edbrowse

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are some google scholar hits for vulnerabilities (not particularly for this software, just listed together with other software that had the same), but that's about it for WP:SECONDARY coverage. Pcap ping  09:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

(Not registered yet 86.203.157.66 (talk))
 * Please do not delete.
 * Delete A link to sourceforge is not establishing notability. Miami33139 (talk) 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not finding enough significant, reliable, 3rd party coverage to merit conclusion, like those above.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  01:30, 3 January 2010 (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.