Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teashark (2nd nomination)


 * 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! 03:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Teashark
AfDs for this article:


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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG and NSOFT. The only reliable independent coverage I could is a brief CNET article from 2008 and a Softpedia post. I'm unclear on the editorial standards or reliability of the latter; previous RSN discussion suggests it may be a marginally reliable source but either way this limited coverage does not seem significant enough to suggest notability to me. Ineligible for PROD due to prior AfD. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 22:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep. Two sources in the nom fulfill GNG in my mind. CNET especially was extremely reputable for software in that era, and we shouldn't let recent issues discount that. Note that there are also some trivial mentions in reliable sources that at least help with verifiability if not notability. &mdash;siro&chi;o 23:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that CNET is reliable here, the reliability I'm unclear on is Softpedia. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 15:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: For input on the sources listed above... Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * delete, I don't think that one reliable source is enough to show notability. Artem.G (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Softpedia's review seems marginally reliable. I've found some other sources but those aren't nearly good enough together. SWinxy (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - some references online but does not seem to meet on quality or notability. - Indefensible (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Language barrier here, but (found by SWinxy above) is relatively in-depth, and shows details of the browser (it's a 3rd party/independent manual that actually seems to describe some of the browser functionality and such, afaict) I've updated my !vote above from wk to k &mdash;siro&chi;o 01:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added this book, CNET, and Softpedia refs into the article &mdash;siro&chi;o 02:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment First source (the book) looks to be the guidelines on how to use the software - I don't believe it qualifies to confirm notability. I don't know much about Softpedia as an eligible source but if it is accepted, then the article itself is in-depth. CNET may qualify too. Onetimememorial (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2023 (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.