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The result was nomination withdrawn. I'm already relisting too many AFDs today. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UltraBrowser[edit]

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

I removed the prod from this article because I found some gnews hits. Might not be enough but I felt that an AFD discussion was needed before this article is deleted. Since the article was prodded by an IP user I decided to nominate it myself. Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its been available for download for years and has only achieved a couple of Gnews hits. The Atlanta Journal Constitution in particular has written about it several times. There is a proposed notability standard for software which never achieved consensus but which I think is helpful: "It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources;" or "It has been the subject of significant product reviews circulated in general interest sources". I think Ultrabrowser is right on the borderline and probably just on the wrong side.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2011 (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.