Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brave (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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brave (web browser)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable as it stands. No secondary sources. Present sources fail WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Sources are mix of churnalism, blogs and press releases. scope_creep (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. A promotional piece by a SPA Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews by Network World, cnet.com and Ars Technica are both independent and in-depth. They are not reprints of n press releases. Disregarding the Google Play and Apple Store links, there is enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established, and there was recent improvements to make the article less infomercial. Basicbbr (talk • contribs) 21:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC) - Removed vote for Keep after reading other opinions, article exist because of inherited notability (If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner)[reply]
Keep The only primary sources are the versions and operating systems compatible with the browser, which is the case for other wikipedia articles on web browsers such as Firefox and Google Chrome. The rest of the sources are okay and although this article may require a little clean up. The browser definitely deserves it's own article. 344917661X (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (unsure)[reply]

344917661X, your rationale doesn't make the least bit of sense. This is primary sources, WP:PSTS, not what it executes on. The sources are trade papers, it is their business to report on major software products, and as such they fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The product isn't known outside the software world, it is completely transparent to the average web user, and the only reason it has got traction is because it was created by Brendan Eich. Chrome has 88% of the market, and Firefox has a very long history, and a one time 77% of the market. This doesn't and the only weight that is carrying it at the moment is Brendan Eich. Without him, it would unknown to almost everybody. scope_creep (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only argument of yours that I agree with is the trade papers one, but because the only secondary sources in the article are trade papers, I have crossed out my keep sentence and have withdrawn my support of keeping this article. 344917661X (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

344917661X Please don't let any arguments of mine stop you. If you think it is a keep, please say so, but you must specify the policies, and a good rationale. scope_creep (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, now let's see how this AFD turns out. 344917661X (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this browser wouldn't be notable without the involvement of Brendan Eich is unfair, in my sincere opinion. Brave is an ad and tracker blocker, similar to uBlock Origin, AdBlock, and AdBlock Plus. Brave has repeatedly found itself leading charts in both the Google's Play Store and iTunes. On the Play Store alone Brave has more than 5M downloads. The software is of interest to those in traditional advertising and publishing circles too on account of Brave's forthcoming digital advertising model, which is currently in user testing. Jonathansampson (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathansampson, I feel I should point people to the COI disclosure which you very properly placed on your user page, just so there's no uncertainty as I only discovered it by chance. Cheers, Basie (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Basie, thank you. If you find anything I've said or done to be inappropriate, please do let me know. My aim here is not to market a browser, but to state and defend what is factual and objectively true. Jonathansampson (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least—I just find it's better to be overt about these things :) Cheers, Basie (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. I don't find the argument convincing that sources which report on major software products do not count toward NCORP. Further, it's not a requirement that to be notable a piece of software must have significant visibility to "non-computer people" (otherwise, we'd have no React article among many others). Finally, software surely does not have to be comparatively popular to be notable. Brave does not require a specific percentage of the browser market share before it "deserves" an article. It simply requires coverage in independent RS, which it has. It's worth noting that, even if it got so much press because of its creator, the coverage is of the browser, making the issue of inherited notability somewhat moot. Basie (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 07:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (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.