Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teashark

: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 withdraw nomination. Tavix | Talk 22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Teashark]]=

:{{la|Teashark}} ([{{fullurl:Teashark|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teashark}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Not notable Cybercobra (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've searched Google News and none of the mentions of it go into any great depth much beyond that of press release-like material. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. In amongst all the blog comments there's magazine and technical magazine coverage; seems to meet notability guidelines. eg [http://www.mobilemag.com/2008/03/25/new-teashark-beta-web-browser-now-available/] [http://www.phonemag.com/teashark-java-browser-with-tabs-zoom-rss-031984.php] [http://www.cnet.com.au/hands-on-with-the-teashark-mobile-browser-339287847.htm][http://www.gadgetell.com/tech/comment/teashark-gives-full-web-browsing-on-mobile-phones/]. I42 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep - there are 44 [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22teashark%22&cf=all GNews hits] for this web browser, and actually I don't see a single press release in the bunch. The first page of results are mostly blogish posts and thus not very useful. However, there are quite a few foreign language reliable sources on pages 2-5. The language of coverage is, of course, irrelevant, and thus the GNG are reached through coverage in multiple reliable sources.

Additionally, there are a few RS English reviews of the browser, such as [http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-TeaShark-Mobile-Browser-Aims-For-Opera-039-s-Success-81852.shtml Softpedia], [http://www.cnet.com.au/hands-on-with-the-teashark-mobile-browser-339287847.htm CNET Australia], and [http://wapreview.com/blog/?p=858 WAP Review] (technically a blog, but I would considet it an RS for purposes of product review) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

:Withdraw CNET Australia is sufficient for me. The article still definitely needs work though. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.