Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brave (web browser)

Brave (web browser)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Brave (web 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)

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)

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

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

• Delete Fails NCORP. A promotional piece by a SPA Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)