Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sputnik (web 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. Delete !voters have indicated that no reliable, independent sources are available and thus notability has not been shown. Although I agree that a merge might be nice per PRESERVE, there is at present no applicable target and a fairly clear consensus that the content is not worth an independent article. I am not against userfying this if someone wants to work on it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik (web browser)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of this browser's notability: the search in Google Books, Google News and duckduckgo (Sputnik KHTML query proved to return most relevant results) returns either this article's clones or fan sites, forums and other kinds of self-publsihed works. Same goes for references in the article with exception of the fan magazine's interview with browser's developer (which is a primary source, and doesn't indicate notability as such).

The talk page and previous AfD discussion contain some discussion of notability with implication of historical significance (see WP:NSOFT § Inclusion criterion #4), based on the fact that there was a period of time when this browser was the only "modern" browser for MorphOS platform, though the article lists other MorphOS browsers with nearly identical feature set in several of them.

Overall, I propose deletion of the article per WP:N and WP:NOT (particularly WP:NOTDIR). Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just don't see the coverage that justifies inclusion on Wikipedia. Its historical significance does not appear to have been documented in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ to KHTML, which, according to the article, Sputnik is a port of. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KHTML is a layout engine used in Sputnik. They are related the same way as, say, Avant Browser and Gecko, Trident and WebKit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I'd reckon keep, a rather weak keep but as there's no logical merge target I feel this should be kept rather than deleted. Notability is very borderline but in borderline cases with no merge target, content should be kept, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | babble _ 16:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems independently notable, and it appears to be very notable to the MorphOS community. I don't see any reason to delete this. —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 02:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be more precise: it seems notable per sources in the article? Or you found other sources? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep~~ - Source material incudes [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Some of it is press releases, but those could be good for a few sentences in the article. The others that are independent reliable sources seem to provide enough content for a stand alone article. ~~With the referenes now in the article, seems to be a keeper.~~ -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia article says the Sputnik (web browser) came out in 2006, but the Sputnik + browser sources I found go back to at least 1998.[9] Only external links 7 and 8 in my post above are 2006 or later and both those are press releases and might not actually be relevant to the topic as described in the article. A search for sputnik and morphos doesn't bring up any reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the record: all of these (including the newer two) are about Sputnik Agent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sources about this online, which leaves the sources in the article. MorphZone and AmigaWeb don't look like they qualify under WP:RS, leaving the Total Amiga Magazine source, and I don't think that this is enough to prove Sputnik's notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr. Stradivarius and Uzma Gamal. This doesn't seem to have made it, and the window is past. --Bejnar (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (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.