Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browser Backgrounds

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. — Aitias // discussion 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browser Backgrounds

Contested PROD. Firefox extension that I can't see any evidence of notability for. The creator has spelled out on Talk:Browser Backgrounds why he feels it is notable, but as far as I can see it is merely one item amongst thousands on a few listings pages; and a couple of one-paragraph reviews on Italian blogs. Additionally this appears to be self-promotion (article created by User:Baris Derin, the same name as the author of the software. Stormie (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Stormie (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are taking this discussion a bit personally Stormie. Why not Leet Key,Rikaichan or NewsFox but Browser Backgrounds.

No one can't prove a software is notable or not notable. It is a completely subjective matter. Is there any objective criteria that you can rely on? Does a software have to be used by you or your close friends, or be announced on a blog that you frequently read to be regarded as notable? Any Italian blog is not enough to take a software's notability level above threshold, is it? Italians are so Italians, right?

When a new software is sent to Mozilla it is pushed to Sandbox (ei.g [1]. Just advanced users can install the software and send reviews about it. If the software gets enough good reviews and after it is tested thoroughly by Mozilla Editors it is ported to public ___domain (e.g. [2]. Any software served on public ___domain of Mozilla has the notability from Mozilla, a company that is leading Web Technologies. If you do regard the Mozilla as so unimportant as the grocery at the corner of your street, Mozilla Foundation article may be a good start for you.

Thanks. Baris Derin (talk) 10:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, have a read of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - the question is whether your product meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Not whether the rest of Wikipedia is perfect (of course, it isn't). Why Browser Backgrounds? Simply because I was looking at the 100 Newest Pages list and saw it. I have no personal interest in the matter, even if you do.

No, whether software is notable enough for Wikipedia or not is not a completely subjective matter. The objective criteria which we try to rely on is spelled out in Wikipedia:Notability:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

Blogs, for instance (whether in Italian or any other language!), are generally not considered Reliable Sources by Wikipedia. Nor would a single paragraph review generally be regarded as "significant coverage".

The Mozilla Foundation is of course important. But looking at the addon listing page, it seems that Browser Backgrounds is one of roughly 9,000 addons listed there. Being one of 9,000 items listed on a listing page is not "significant coverage" either. --Stormie (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google, Talk:Browser Backgrounds and Browser_Backgrounds#References show no signs of nontrivial coverage. — Rankiri (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. software article with no reliable 3rd party sources establishing notability. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Dialectric (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.