Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IbisBrowser (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 21:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IbisBrowser

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

No evidence of significant and independent coverage. References in the article are either press releases, blogs, or company sources. Searches turn up mirrors and wikis, more blogs, more press release sites, and false positives. No indication of sources that pass WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT is not satisfied. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article originally by the WP:SPA IbisBrowser. The company website features ibisPaint and ibisMail but not this product so presumably it is no longer maintained. (Judging from the article text, they had gone heavily for the Windows Mobile platform as the future.) The 2008 AfD discussion viewed the article as well-referenced, but I suspect the standards are tighter today, as these appear to have been routine announcements and listings rather than in-depth coverage. My own searches are not finding evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:51, 19 March 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.