Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivaldi (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 keep. WP:SNOW early closure. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaldi (web browser)

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

This browser is quite far from being a released product. All we have so far is a "second preview" of a prototype. Neither in the literature there is any evidence of strong expectations by the internet communities about this software. Therefore the subject doesn't appear to have yet enough noticeability (and Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a "teaser" for future softwares still in quite early development phases, and whose first release date is yet totally unknown and unpredictable). Considering also that the very first versions of this article looked like a "copy-paste" from the manifacturer's website (see also the article's talk), is it close to something "promotional"? L736E (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L736E

> This browser is quite far from being a released product. All we have so far is a "second preview" of a prototype.

The browser is not a "released product", but it is used/tested. The vivaldi-crew let users participate with the active development. I found out about that here: vivaldi-teamblog. That blog even announced a feature-request-poll and a high number of users took part: feature-poll (the number of participants is displayed after polling)

> Neither in the literature there is any evidence of strong expectations by the internet communities about this software.

I dont know how you want that to be proved. However, since vivaldi itself is a community (vivaldi is a social network and there is a browser with the same name) and its possible to take a look on the vivaldi-homepage, I think its enough to prove that the community is alive and "strong" whatsoever.

> ..., is it close to something "promotional"?

I dont think so. Vivaldi was already promoted on all IT-news-sites I know. Google and Bing give me reasonable results with the keywords "vivaldi browser". With google or bing i find blogs and news-sites reporting about the vivaldi browser and the sense of its existence (opera 10 or what was a feature-rich browser without addons. the later versions of opera were not feature-rich anymore - it became another addon-focused browser and many users were disappointed. vivaldi-people seem to expect/hope to get their feature-rich browser back (who has many features without installed addons))

--Meppll (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now i noticed it is worth mentioning there are two domains: vivaldi.com and vivaldi.net
This wikipedia-article is only informing about the website who is propagating the webbrowser - that website is accessible via vivaldi.com
The wikipedia-article is also saying something about "community" - it's website is accessible via vivaldi.net and that domain is not mentioned in this wikipedia-article.
So, someone may get the impression that the "community" is a hoax and doesnt exist. but actually it exists
--Meppll (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the cited independent third party refs, including CNET, Reuters and Ars Technica, establish the notability of the subject, as per WP:N. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I understand you may think it is an advertisement, Wikipedia is all about being an encyclopedia and this is just another browser to add to the list for reference. I think it is a very valuable addition to the Wiki because it offers insight on a modern browser and is just another addition to the growing web browser list. Thanks for raising this debate though, it is good to discuss. JC713 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All things considered, this is one of the situations that the problem can be fixed instead of eliminated. Cursory web search shows good material on secondary reliable sources on websites such as TechCrunch, TechSpot, ZDNet, Ars Technica, Softpedia, Gizmodo, PC World and ExtremeTech. Things that I would do instead of deleting would be revising the prose, deleting parts that are just reiterations of the infobox without additional value. There is a bit of raw download stat that should be deleted too. We need prose added from the mentioned source. I read some important things in the sources that does not appear in the article, e.g. how the browser caters to power users with quick commands. Also the citation style is also non-existent. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've never heard of Vivaldi. If I had heard it mentioned somewhere, I'd certainly look it up on Wikipedia. Therefore I think the article ought not to be deleted. Some people will hear of it and look for it here. It should be here.

Its optimistic tone could well be toned down, if people think its never going to be a "thing". It could perhaps mention 'intentions' to develop the product instead of making it look like a sure thing. But the subject (the potential browser) needs to be here. --Hordaland (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Generally I support not a crystal ball, but here I'm inclined to wait some months. If nothing happens in 2015 please nominate the article again for deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, indefinitely. Gmail was far from being released, for a while. Rust (the browser rendering engine) isn't released. Ideas like Cascadian independence don't seem feasible. Yet, all of these things have a place on Wikipedia. Just because something's new (but heavily featured in the press), does not mean that it shouldn't be featured on Wikipedia. One of Wikipedia's greatest advantages over traditional encyclopedias was its freshness—it adapted to current times, and displayed up to date information. Zaixionito (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It looks like there is a pretty strong consensus already but I agree this should be kept. The fact that it hasn't been and may never be released is irrelevant. I had heard of it even before I saw the article on the various nerd blogs that I frequent and there seem to be decent references. I also googled "Vivaldi browser" and saw a lot of relevant links so even if the current refs aren't good (I didn't bother to check them) there seem to be lots of refs out there and the article should be improved not deleted. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it is covered in depth by independent third party sources which are reliable. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 18:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite. The entire article is essentially an advertisement with statements like "The browser is aimed at hardcore technologists ..." If you guys really want to keep the article around, then your efforts would be better spent toning down the article's POV, not wasting time arguing about it on the AfD page. Use your efforts more constructively. 98.86.115.145 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the language is a bit wp:promotional and. Wp:pov but that is not a valid reason to delete the article. Just edit the text. Also, I don't even think the language is all that bad. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Wikipedia is littered with short throwaway articles about little-used, obscure, small computer programs or even their components (just take a look at Template:KDE) and someone wants to delete a thing that has actual news value? :) Kumiponi (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the worst article that I've seen. It's got coverage in reliable sources, and any promotional wording can be fixed through normal editing. If it doesn't ever go anywhere, I guess we can discuss a possible merger, but notability isn't temporary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2015 (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.