Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stainless (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   no consensus. This discussion has been open way too long and it's dead Jim. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Stainless (web browser)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The notability of this software is questionable. Probably non-existent. The article sounds promotional, using words like "unique." Dpaanlka (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The only decent sources I could find:, , , . Are these of sufficient depth+reliability? Meh. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as not one of them suggest that the subject is notable. I'm interested in finding evidence that more than 10 people use this software? Dpaanlka (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's been over a year since this article was first tagged as possibly being of low notability, and doesn't seem to have improved at all. Dpaanlka (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I disagree, but you do realize notability and userbase size are distinct, yes? --Cyber cobra (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. For example, the userbase of Windows 2.0 is probably almost nothing, and arguably, wasn't ever significant, however it is quite notable as a major early version of the world's dominant operating system. A large, widespread installed userbase is typically one of the characteristics of notable software, with only a relatively small number of exceptions. The notability of this subject has not sufficiently been demonstrated to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, by any benchmark, including my example of userbase. Dpaanlka (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that I believe if the notability of this subject can be more compellingly demonstrated then it should stay. If not, then it should be deleted. Currently, I get the sense that this article is itself intended to raise the notability of the subject (aka advertising) rather than serve any academic purpose. Dpaanlka (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Wired covered it . Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.