Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conqueror 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. Courcelles 01:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Conqueror Browser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obscure, non-notable web browser. Links to downloads, google codes and sourceforge products do not grant notability Skrelk (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to establish notability. Mcewan (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found a number of websites mentioning the browser and offering it for download, but unfortunately no descriptions or reviews independent of the description on the sourceforge project page. The one promising independent book reference turned out to be a misspelling of "Konqueror". Without any independent sources yet, this topic falls below threshold for notability. When reliable in-depth secondary sources become available, article re-creation is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not seeing any substantial reliable sources that could meet WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Refs provided are not reliable sources. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's listed on various software downloading sites, while the homepage is sourceforge and Google code, that's should be understood since it's not a very big project and every everyone can't afford hosting. And it's not any promotional software as it's free and open source, no ads or donations are even asked. The numbers of downloads in various pages are nearing 10,000 combined, also it's mentioned in Google Auto complete suggestions. The might not be very big numbers still promising. Akashtaker001 (talk 12:35, 17 January 2013 (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.