Talk:Torch (web browser): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:13, 13 January 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Torch (web browser) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Computing: Software Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Internet Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reviews vs Reliable Sources

The "blog herald" isn't a regular publisher (any more than Wordpress is...). The reviewer (look at his other articles) is not a knowledgeable reviewer of the topic, either. The CNET review doesn't help either. No notability established so far TEDickey (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability we need coverage of the subject in independent third party refs that are reliable sources, in other words not self-published sources, but sources with editorial oversight. The Blog-Herald seems to have an editorial oversight, as does CNET, Neowin, Softonic and TechSpot, the cited sources. I would have been the first one to CSD this article as spam if it didn't clearly have write-ups in independent news sources with editorial oversight. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "editorial oversight" is 3 guys that run a website, with no clues what criteria they use for allowing submissions. I wouldn't use that site for anything worth mentioning, but this is Wikipedia (itself not a reliable source for anything). Still doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:RS since there's no evidence of "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" TEDickey (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blog-Herald, by the way, has a page asserting this type of credential. But it lacks citations in turn (and googling found only self-references). Nothing that would be useful in promoting it as a WP:RS. Perhaps someone can scrape one up. TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me to check if there's a Wikipedia topic for the Blog-Herald (doesn't appear to be one). Most interesting publisher-sources are well-represented with their own topics TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would suggest that if you don't think any of the refs establish notability and you can't find any that do that you should nominate the article for WP:CSD or WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm waiting to see if the topic's creator(s) can find useful sources. They're likely to be most motivated TEDickey (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entry reads like ad copy for a browser whose company is using Wikipedia to promote it.69.244.155.82 (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:53, 24 December 2012 edit Tedickey (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 54,063 edits →‎Reviews vs Reliable Sources ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:13, 13 January 2013 edit undo 69.244.155.82 (talk) →‎Reviews vs Reliable Sources Next edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:At the moment I'm waiting to see if the topic's creator(s) can find useful sources. They're likely to be most motivated [[User:Tedickey\|TEDickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey\|talk]]) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)		:At the moment I'm waiting to see if the topic's creator(s) can find useful sources. They're likely to be most motivated [[User:Tedickey\|TEDickey]] ([[User talk:Tedickey\|talk]]) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

			This entry reads like ad copy for a browser whose company is using Wikipedia to promote it.[[Special:Contributions/69.244.155.82\|69.244.155.82]] ([[User talk:69.244.155.82\|talk]]) 04:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)