Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheWorld 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

TheWorld Browser

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable software. Was unable to locate coverage in reliable sources. Prod in 2009 but linked Google News archive search shows no reliable sources. Pnm (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

--77.236.26.56 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree I cannot agree that TheWorld Browser is not notable, especially in China. Just look at the Google Trends. Their BBS has 320000 registered users. TheWorld Browser is more popular than K-Meleon or AOL Explorer, or even SeaMonkey, according to Softpedia. TheWorld Chrome is under active and rapid development, and it is very promising since it is in English and Chinese. So don't delete it!
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete: If this is, in fact, notable, then there should be some reliable sources saying so. Anyone advocating to Keep this article has a few more days to find some.   Ravenswing  17:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not delete: If TheWorld Browser is not notable, than what can you say about GreenBrowser, UltraBrowser, SlimBrowser, NetCaptor, NeoPlanet, SeaMonkey and many more listed here? They all have their article. And TheWorld is even more popular than them (see Softpedia above or Download.com). TheWorld is very popular in China, just look at these sources (translated by Google): |en&u=http://www.skycn.net/sort/sort2010100_down_times_DESC_1.html Sky CN (ranked after IE, Maxthon and Tencent Traveler), |en&u=http://blog.yalinfo.com/2009/07/theworld-browser-30.html, |en&u=http://azo-freeware.blogspot.com/2007/08/2058.html, |en&u=http://moonpoet.com/theworld-browser.html and Google Trends for TheWorld Browser, Maxthon Browser an Firefox in China. It's enough against deleting the article, you'd rather enhance it. --83.5.159.187 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: your first 3 sentences: Other "worse" articles existing does not justify an article's existence, And Download stats ≠ notability. --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are another reliable sources: Baidu Encyclopedia (translated), Software Informer, WayBeta, BetaNews, TechBeta... Need more? --83.26.5.194 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's good that you bring so many references here, but why don't you integrated them into the article? mabdul 11:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the above sources appear to meet WP:RS: 1, 2, 3, Baidu Baike (tertiary), Software Informer, WayBeta, BetaNews, TechBeta. How about something substantial printed in a newspaper or tech magazine? --Pnm (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2011 (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.