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. Core desat 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Knight[edit]

Non-notable web browser. Fails WP:CORP. Also, violation of WP:COI as the article was written by the person who created the browser. Reads like an advert. Denied speedy because admin felt it could be fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Surf Knight is a notable web browser, it was featured in various Internet blogs such as Mom's Daily, and Chilli Technology. I feel very strongly that Surf Knight will become a major player in the Kids' Web browser market. I do realize that it has not appeared in a major publication yet. But, again, I feel that the article should not be deleted just because, the dev team do not have enough money to hire a PR rep. Additionally, Wikipedia does serve articles on commercial web browsers such as Opera and non-profit web browsers such as Firefox. Browsers that use similar technology also have recieved covering, examples are: AOL Explorer, Altimit OS Web Browser, Avant Browser, Bento Browser (Built into Winamp), Enigma, Maxthon, Slim Browser, NeoPlanet, NetCaptor, many other Internet Explorer shells, Yahoo! Browser (or partnership browsers eg. "AT&T Yahoo! Browser"; "Verizon Yahoo! Browser"; "BT Yahoo! Browser" etc.) iRider, Smart Bro, and UltraBrowser. Furthermore, I disagree that the article reads like an advert. It plainly introduced what Surf Knight is and lists the features. MetinKandiyoti (talk) 6:59, 23 January 2008
- You should note that, as I explained to you on your talk page, other articles exist is not a valid arguement for inclusion. With that said, all of those articles are notable due to secondary sources per WP:CORP. Being mentioned in blogs, unfortunately, does not qualify for notability. Also, there's still the lingering issue of conflict of interest. Redfarmer (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There can not be a conflict of interest, since the web site, surfknight.com does not have any ads, or other kinds of revenue generating tools, and the software is distributed free of charge, which does not include any spyware, or adware. MetinKandiyoti (talk) 7:24 (EST), 23 January 2008
    - The conflict of interest is that you, who created the web browser according to the article, also wrote the article. See WP:COI. Redfarmer (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Redfarmer, I understand your concern in keeping Wikipedia a valuable source for all of the Internet users. I, for one, am an active user of Wikipedia, and appreciate the change it has brought to the way we view information. At Surf Knight, we are trying to achieve a similar goal. There are many kids aged between 5 to 11 who are not allowed to use Internet, because of their parents' concern about explicit content. Our mission is to empower kids with the rich content of Internet, while protecting them from malicious content. Although, we make this software free to download, it is still a challenge to reach to the people who will benefit the use of this software. I do realize that I do not have a strong argument here, but I ask if you have it your (and the other Wikipedia admin's) heart to let this article be published.

Thanks for your consideration talk) 11:25 PM (EST), 23 January 2008

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:COI per main editors comment "I feel very strongly that Surf Knight will become a major player in the Kids' Web browser market." Jeepday (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wait until it actually does become a major player to allow an article. Maxa megalon 2000 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we be more constructive than just throwing delete tags. How about we expand this article to cover other Web Browsers designed for kids? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetinKandiyoti (talk • contribs) talk) 8:22 AM (EST), 24 January 2008
- That's not the issue here. If you want to create another article on kids' web browsers (and can index it with secondary sources), you're more than welcome to. The issue here is that the article is not notable enough to stand on its own nobility. Redfarmer (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is coverage in blogs, but these do not count as reliable sources to establish notability. The only other search results are download links. As such, there are no reliable sources to establish notability. If this web browser does catch on, the article can be reacted then. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it has potential to become a better article, and it is as notable as any other browser. STYROFOAM☭1994_TALK 00:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? Redfarmer (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "It's gonna be famous some day" (with its more elegant variants, such as "It has great potential") is the lamest defense in the book for a non-notable band, website, program, etc. If and when it becomes notable, then and only then does it get an article. (And WP:COI is not just for commercial enterprises; it applies to charities, schools, ideologies, etc.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:50, 28 January 2008 (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.