Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloha (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. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Most of the references are to store pages, the product's site, or unrelated information. A WP:BEFORE resulted mostly in download links and forum discussions. Found a couple reviews but those appear to be very run-of-the-mill stuff. Isabelle ^🔔 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Isabelle ^🔔 00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Cyprus. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I don't think the nominator did a good job on WP:BEFORE. I found bunch more good articles and have added them as a citation. See: Wired, online-tech-tips.com, Techradar and Windows Report. Zeddedm (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't take those kinds of articles in considerations as I don't see "The X best" as enough to establish notability. Isabelle ^🔔 00:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why we should not consider such articles if more than one paragraph of info exists, showing it's in depth. Plus several publications calling it "the best" at something is a good thing, unless it can be established that it was PR or from a non-notable publication. Zeddedm (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please list WP:THREE best sources for detailed evaluation and discussion? As of now, I don't really see even a single good source. Am I missing something? Anton.bersh (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFT, or WP:PRODUCT. This article reads like a promotional piece and upon further inspection it is clear that some sources come directly from developers of this browser. Other sources do not appear relevant (like etymology of word "Aloha"), in-depth, or reliable. Anton.bersh (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL software, the coverage linked to above is not substantial or of questionable reliability. Sandstein 09:12, 15 March 2022 (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.