Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runecats Explorer

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runecats Explorer

edit
Runecats Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability at all. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS per this and this. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 11:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should remain. It is an honest cause to save the earth, as well as an overall useful and easy browser. In time, more an more people will find out about it, there will be more need for the article to remain. It is most definitely notable, and therefore should have an article. Not to mention the article is fully developed, and doesn't seem to be lacking information in any area. I myself am a long-time user of the browser, as well as a member of the community, and from what I've witnessed, Runecats Explorer will sooner or later be ranked up there with Firefox and Chrome. Does that mean those articles were also pending deletion back before they became popular? Even if they were, they most certainly aren't now.
--AMV Ph34r (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox and Chrome are notable. Both have had lots of coverage in the mainstream media. What coverage of RE can you find in the mainstream media? Your opinion that it is better is just that an opinion. Wikipedia requires 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. No one in the "keep" camp has produced any despite ample opportunity/ noq (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This web browser article has been running for well over a year now, it has references and it appears to be a popular article to contribute. I found out about Runecats Explorer from wikipedia and I am glad I did as I use it as one of my main web browsers now.

I feel this article in relevant and should remain on wikipedia. Wikedit-34 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you find the browser useful or not, if it is not notable, it doesn't need an article... Captain n00dle T/C 16:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Wikedit this browser is notable, it was the default browser at my work place, a lot of my friends and family use it, I don't personly use the browser and just because you don't doesn't necessarily make it not notable.

This browser is certainly more notable than a lot of the browsers on wikipedia, lets take a slightly more well known browser such as "AOL Explorer"- this is still on wikipedia, it has the same amount if not less references, i wouldn't really classify that as notable.

There are loads of trident and gecko based browsers on the list of web browsers section which are less notable than RE.

John2232 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC) — John2232 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


Runecats Explorer is notable, it's the first browser to try and reduce the amount of electricity used to save the environment, it was one of the first browser to have full GUI skinning, it is one of the most search aided browsers, It does deserve an article, I and many other edit this article, give information on the newest released, some people give information of the history and much more. This browser isn't a new browser it has been going for years, it has been going before Flock, Chrome etc...

Well I have got to go so that will have to be it for now. Softwareleaksrme (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


How can you say the first browser to try and protect our planet isn't notable, the first search engine which did this has a page Blackle.com so why shouldn't the first browser. Think of our planet guys!

From me- Ecofreakoftreeland (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC) — Ecofreakoftreeland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


I don't usually edit Wikipedia, however when I saw this I was shocked. Why do you want to remove this aritcle?! Runecats Explorer is awesome! 92.3.176.225 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC) — 92.3.176.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hey.. I did say I don't usually edit Wikipedia... 92.3.176.225 (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am with the crowd here, Runecats Explorer is notable- Runecats Explorer is rated a unconventional alternative to Google Chrome here: http://www.webtlk.com/2008/09/25/the-best-unconventional-alternative-to-google-chrome/

All of the other browsers rated here are all still on wikipedia, why should this be the only one which isn't, I am all for keeping RE on WIkipedia.

Malcommush (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not considered reliable sources to establish notability. Can ANYONE provide any reliable third party source that about this browser? All I see is a lot of single purpose accounts saying that they like it. noq (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note; HairHorn has undone one members argument
Yes, I rolled back an edit by Softwaregeekland77777 that deleted the above note. Feel free to check the history. Hairhorn (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make things fair here is the quoted message which was deleted:

I do also believe that RE should remain on the best free encyclopedia (wikipedia), Earlier this year at my college we got given a project on an internet browser (my team got given RE), I used wikipedia for a lot of my information, after having to do research on it I actually tried it and it's actually ok, I still prefer Safari however I certainly believe that RE should remain on wikipedia. Softwaregeekland77777 (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee-mcmay (talk • contribs)


Now yes I am a fan of RE, however that doesn't mean that I don't count, I also believe that RE should stay for everyones above reasons and more. and HairHorn don't victimize me because I mainly edit Runecats Explorer, Just because I feel passionate about the browser and like to edit it, so don't victimize me like you are trying with other members.

If this article goes I will be lost :(

I hope this case gets resolved soon

Lee-mcmay (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result of investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikedit-34/Archive. Summary: Confirmed and users blocked. noq (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dojan5 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2009 (GMT+1)

Runecats Explorer have been going for several years now, and has been the first web browser with several utilities that no other web browser have even implemented yet. First of all, Runecats Explorer is being developed without much funding at all, now take me seriously or not, that is irrelevant. Runecats have also developed Runecats Explorer over several years now, it is older than for instance, Google Chrome, I have seen it around for years. I haven't seen any web browser with that many search engines built in and easily accessible from one tool, and there's a lot of notable things which makes this web browser unique. Whether or not one person finds this article irrelevant or not but this web browser does deserve a Wikipedia entry, and I'm baffled that Runecats still doesn't have one. Keep this article, Runecats and Runecats Explorer does deserve it.

  • Delete - Absolutely no indication of notability. No reviews from major IT news sources despite claims of popularity in UK and USA - and I have never heard of it before today. Article does look to have been subjected to a sustained campaign to make it look as if a lot of people are editing it. noq (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dojan5 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (GMT+1)

I am very sorry for apparently appearing to be a "sock puppet". I'm merely expressing my opinion. Runecats Explorer have been around for years, although I do not have any evidence for that, but I guess I could dig some up. I'm a friend of the developer, and we've been partners for years.. I'm not a "sock puppet". Please do not come with such absurd statements without at least looking up the IP. I vote for a stay, not only as a friend of the developer, but the fact that this web browser is unique enough to have a Wikipedia article.

As a friend of the developer, have you read WP:COI? And can you show some reliable sources for notability. I have looked but can't find any. noq (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets?

edit

Everyone except from me, Hairhorn and Captain n00dle seem to be sock puppets of one person (no or almost no contributions outside the article, complete noobs in en-wiki). SkyBonTalk/Contributions 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dojan5 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2009 (GMT+1) I've had this account on Wikipedia since a few years back. Everyone with an account probably doesn't add/edit/contribute to pages, you think? The reason for my activity in THIS article is because this is something I have knowledge about, claiming people to be sock puppets due to them not finding interest in editing other articles is in my personal opinion outright dimwitted. Investigate these people as you feel, but please do investigate BEFORE claiming something you do not have proof of.

Comparing RuneCats Explorer to FireFox

edit

LucarFox 10:31, 27 October 2009 (GMT-5) I was using RE and Comparing it to FF In windows Vista (*yuk*)... RE was using about 50,000 kb less ram than FF. FF was using 5% of my CPU when RE was using 3%. Also RE came with all the plugins I needed to watch youtube videos and play a few java games i found on the google chrome testing thing :P. I tested this with my 2.4 ghz duel core,4gegs of ram, and an nvidia 9600. RE is notably.. well... little bit BETTER than FF! Something to consider if u have really bad ram ;).

another "user" appearing out of nowhere to praise the browser - where are the 3rd party references to back this up? A new user appearing having made no other edits claims it is notable without giving a reference to prove notability. Just because you claim to like it does not make it notable. noq (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...

edit

Well the only argument for not having this Wikipedia article delete is not enough 3rd party sources, so I decided to look at lots of other web browsers:
Web_visions < that really should be deleted.
Enigma
GreenBrowser
MSN_Explorer
IRider
Teega
TheWorld_Browser
Smart_Bro
WebbIE
Madfox
UltraBrowser

Ok there are just a few examples of some browsers. These are all on wikipedia and have smaller articles than Runecats Explorer and have no references on the article. Please explain why you are not picking on these browsers but are picking on RE which has a bigger article. Softwareleaksrme (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since anyone can make a wikipedia page, the quality or existence of other pages isn't really considered a good argument against deletion. See wp:otherstuffexists. Having a "bigger article" also wildly irrelevant to whether it should stay or not. If you want to nominate any more of these pages for deletion, as you did with Web visions, be prepared to come up with a reason. Hairhorn (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You looked hard at the Teega article - it is nominated for deletion for much the same reasons as this one. But as Hairhorn already indicated whether or not another article exists that does not meet the notability guidelines is irrelevant. This article has to show that it meets them. So show me the third party articles in reliable sources that discuss this "popular" browser. And that means more than a mention of the name or a user comment - I can find those.noq (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't matter if Firefox is like Runecats, it doesn't matter if it's going to be really popular soon, and it doesn't matter if it saves the Earth, though that's nice. The bottom line is, the subject of the article doesn't meet the corresponding notability guidelines. If the subject of an article doesn't have notability, it can't have an article because no research can be done on it. The article looks really boasting, for lack of a better term, and promotional. These are problems that could potentially be solved with a rewrite. However, a rewrite can't even occur if the subject is not notable enough to have an article in the first place. talkingbirds 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable IE reskin with very sketchy details and not much of a userbase to speak of. Also makes questionable claims that it uses less energy than other browsers...every browser uses the same amount of energy, period. Most of this stuff about how 'skinning with a black color saves energy on a monitor' I feel is WP:BOLLOCKS and is pretty much lost in the course of average browsing. Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 29 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Runecats_Explorer&oldid=1138323022"