Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epic 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. I am closing this as delete, because many of the keep !votes are in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Additionally, the re-release of the press release does not count as non-trivial independent coverage. There is no bias against recreation, but consensus says that there just isn't adequate coverage at this time. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Epic browser

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This does not appear to be a notable product, and no indication of significance or importance is given. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete A7 per nom. — I-20 the highway  17:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A7 isn't for products, or I woulda tagged it as such. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to Mozilla Firefox. A stub should be more than one sentence, and it's in an improper tone at that. Google doesn't say much about it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As noted in Articles for deletion/Epic (web browser), it appears to be just an advert, not notable Tedickey (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep has reviews. Reviews are what makes products notable, even newly developed ones. Tone is descriptive, and I  see several paragraphs, not just one sentence.  DGG ( talk ) 15:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regurgitation of press releases are not reviews. Miami33139 (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep-The browser has received several good reviews from reputable sources. It is also touted as the first browser from India targeted toward Indians as well as the first browser to have integrated virus protection.Smallman12q (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This AfD has turned into a bit of a mess. There is a duplicate article on this subject named Epic  (web browser), which also had an AfD started on it.  That AfD was speedily closed by a non-admin (because only one AfD is necessary on the duplicate articles), and the closer redirected Epic (web browser) to Epic browser.  Another editor reverted that redirect, and instead redirected Epic browser to Epic (web browser).  I have updated the AfD template on Epic (web browser) to point to this AfD, as it was incorrectly pointing to the AfD that had been speedily closed.  All this speedy closing, redirecting, and reverting is quite confusing and mildly disruptive.  Just calm down until the AfD is over.    Snotty Wong   talk 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   squeal 19:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Despite it launching only yesterday, it appears to have a lot of press already.   Snotty Wong   comment 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and wait, as Snottywong mabdul 19:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Already covered by major Indian newspapers.  We can revisit in 6 months if needed.--Milowent • talkblp-r  19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read the references after reading the company press releases. It has not been covered, their press releases have been re-issued. Self-promotion does not make anything notable. Miami33139 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep : The browser has already been launched and is gaining popularity. The reviews can be found in leading tech news forums and news papers.Drharishc (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Is gaining popularity" isn't really a valid argument. Is it already notable? &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 21:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (most of the notes are press-release style). And the personal attack made by Drharishc puts a constraint on considering NPOV Tedickey (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What attack now?--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (looks like edit conflict, see the link I added to his post) &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 21:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not ideal, but Miami33139 has provoked similar before with his noms. I don't know if its his noms, or because they are computer software related.--Milowent • talkblp-r  21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, even the article agrees: "Only time will tell how much of this browser will be accepted by the Indian population and outside India (if at all !!!)". The ability to generate buzz in the media is a sign of good marketing, not of notability. - Simeon (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Browser is great... with lot of info in a centralized location..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep veni (talk • contribs) 20:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)   Moved from top of pageto correct place. Peridon (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep : It only been a forth night since its release and it has got a significantly good reviews. It will be too pre-matrue to delete this post. That explains " Only time can tell its success...". Rakesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshchalasani (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Preceding editor has only made this edit. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Several of the comments for "keep" are predicated on allowing a nonnotable topic to be used by saying that it's too soon to tell if it's nonnotable. That's contradicting the Wikipedia guidelines on notability. Tedickey (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep :The mistake is that most people are assuming that it is not notable only because it is a new software. This assumption is clearly wrong. Another point this article has been reviewed by google news http://news.google.co.in/news/section?pz=1&cf=all&ned=in&topic=t —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdunnoor Patankar (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Preceding user has few other edits. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The google link is automatically generated, not a review, and consequently not a reliable source Tedickey (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - It might be useful to run checkuser on the single-purpose editors who are in this discussion, to see how many are distinct individuals Tedickey (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with checkuser. I'm going to start some research of my own. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 12:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep:Browser is notable! --JovianEye (talk) 15:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Reference section in the article shows links to news coverage of it.  D r e a m Focus  01:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you examine that "news coverate" you will see it is simply re-writes of the corporate press releases. That is not "news coverage" Miami33139 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Playing racist cards ? Seems to be a prejudiced attempt to delete this article.117.201.66.59 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you be precise as to the 'racist' allegation? I can't see anything racist here. Peridon (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I see news writing about it. --Adam Hauner (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this article is a good entry. I do not believe it can be deleted because it is not notable till now. No doubt it did not have any prelaunch show to highlight the software launch but the features in it says it will be a great browser. I recommend it to stay on the wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosh742598 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Preceding user has few other edits. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to new posters No matter how good you thing this browser is, that won't affect the discussion. Your personal opinion will be ignored at the close. There is also no value to saying 'It will be notable - give it time'. Wikipedia does not work like that. You are in effect saying 'Delete' if you say 'give it time'. You need to produce references to Wikipedia's requirements - and that might not be easy yet. Trying to batter us down by numbers also won't work. This is not an election; it is a discussion and only valid arguments will be considered. Note that I haven't !voted here. I'm just trying to get things on an even keel. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then what's the meaning of this discussion ? The question is whether to keep or delete. If the majority opinion carry no face value, then close this discussion and delete the article. "To make known the least known" should be the policy for projects like this. If an article is well known to all, then what is the need for an encyclopedic reference ? Arrogance of reviewers tamper with the 'good faith' and discourage from posting new articles.Drharishc (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're clearly missing the point. In no particular order:
 * If it were just majority rules, then anyone could convince (or worse, create) a number of accounts to skew the results one way or another
 * "To make known the least known" is absolutely contrary to everything on wikipedia. Should "Bob and Joe's band" (created yesterday) get an article because they are barely known? That's what you're arguing.
 * Wikipedia is built on references and reliable sources.
 * This discussion isn't majority, but rather for the quality of the arguments. In short, a bunch of people can't just come on here and say "it's notable!" and be done with it. If they can provide sources that establish notability, that's the way to go. Similarly, someone who wants it deleted shouldn't just say "never heard of it"; instead, a valid argument for deletion is required as well.
 * That's all. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "To make known the least known" is most definitely not the policy of Wikipedia. Encyclopaedias do not promote things. It's up to the person, company or whatever to do their promotion (but not here), and when they achieve the notability we require they get an article. I can see this browser getting an article in the future - but not yet, perhaps. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * on the other hand, the rules at W{:N are guidelines only, and explicitly permit exceptions and say they do--we are not constrained by them in any particular case. The basic policy for making exceptions is WP:IAR, whatever will improve the encyclopedia. An argument that this is overwhelmingly likely to be of importance, and that therefore we should cover it from the start, is a good argument.   DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think, DGG, that the article is going to be deleted. I think a couple of us are just frustrated with 5-edit users popping in to say "what a browser!" or other related nonsense. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete As I noted in the other AFD nomination the "press coverage" and reviews of this browser are simply rewrites of the company press releases. This is not independent coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wonderful discovery...description of features might be same, that doesn't mean that reviewers are simply quoting the company press release. Try to make the article better, rather than panning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.72.202 (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Go on, then. Feel free to have a go. Peridon (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. Despite the number of "keeps" above, there is actually very little substantial "keep" argument. Firstly, many of the arguments have nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's criteria. For example, "The browser has already been launched", it "is gaining popularity", "Browser is great... with lot of info in a centralized location", "It only been a forth night [sic] since its release", "It is also touted as the first browser from India targeted toward Indians", etc. Then we have arguments that effectively amount to "it may not be notable yet, but we should keep the article in case it becomes notable in the future", such as "Only time can tell its success", "I do not believe it can be deleted because it is not notable till now", "this is overwhelmingly likely to be of importance, and that therefore we should cover it from the start" and so on. We also have such comments as "'To make known the least known' should be the policy for projects like this", which is in effect claiming that we should keep the article because it is not notable. Then we have straw man arguments, such as "The mistake is that most people are assuming that it is not notable only because it is a new software. This assumption is clearly wrong." In fact nobody had suggested that it was not notable because it was new, so this comment is totally irrelevant. Finally we have comments such as "Keep:Browser is notable!" with no explanation at all as to why it is notable. OK, so what do we have left in favour of "keep" when we cut out all these non-reasons? We have a small number of editors saying that it has received press coverage. I have looked at every one of the press mentions to which links have been provided. All of them are brief reports of the release, without any substantial coverage. In addition, as mentioned above, they are so closely based on the press release that they are scarcely independent coverage. The amount and type of coverage do not come near to what is required by Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess my argument for keeping the article was a quite weak. But, that was because I felt the discussion did not need strong arguments for the article to be kept. Consider for instance the page view statistics here as a starter. Additionally, there has been press coverage about the article (perhaps not too much), but then you must bear in mind a browser will not receive too much attention from the press in India. Wikipedia does have articles regarding other small browsers in Category:Free web browsers. So, I think that the article should be kept. --JovianEye (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewers keep on panning the article, because it was developed in a third world country. They are not at all bothered about any the other crappy browsers which are not at all notable. Visitors can very well appreciate this bias. There has not been any extensive reviews written about Epic, but it has received nation wide attention, and almost all the national news papers covered it's release(we don't want to "convince" the reviewers about it) as evident from the internet search results about this browser. Remembering a popular saying, "never preach sermon to buffaloes, they just don't listen". Now, reviewers may delete the article, if it irk them so much. I think reviewers have their own policies, which are not Wikipedia's policies. 117.201.73.164 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To both of these: WP:OTHERSTUFF. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:53, 22 July 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.