Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition


 * 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. No consensus to delete. Some strong suggestions for a merge to Firefox but due to the size of that article, I would suggest a standard "mergeto" proposal be made. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources to establish the notability (tagged since May) of this version of Firefox, relies almost entirely on primary sources, the single third party source has questionable reliability. All the necessary information can be covered in a single sentence in the Firefox article, with a decent source. Rehevkor ✉  22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Firefox. We don't have (and wouldn't want) articles for Firefox (Macintosh edition), Firefox (Windows edition), Firefox (Unix edition), etc. —Scheinwerfermann T&middot;C 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge or redirect to the Firefox page: the interest in this is big, so I think at the very least it should be merged to the main Firefox Page. SF007 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with main Firefox page as there is interest in this. --DizFreak talk Contributions 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol merge vote.svg|15px]] Merge — to the Firefox page.  Dspradau   → talk   16:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or merge with PortableApps.com since it is more related to that and not Firefox.  Antonio López  (desu) 16:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. SF007 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to the main article, although is a minor software installer. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Firefox use full info that maybe source able but don't need a full article (yet) --Nate1481 10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While I'm not opposed to a merge, I think an article such as this which was published in the July 2005 edition of Maximum PC helps show that this software is indeed very much notable. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added these two references to the article:
 * --Tothwolf (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --Tothwolf (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * --Tothwolf (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This software is very notable and had many reviews made about it. Just check its press page at http://portableapps.com/about/press/news and it shows all of the reviews that have been about it. If this software isn't notable then I don't know what is. How do scam companies like jamba get onto wikipedia but useful software like this is up for deletion. It is completely unfair on small, trustworthy companies. ZZZChris (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of those seem to be about Portableapps itself, or the suite, not this software. The fact other stuff exists bares no relevance here. Portableapps still has a page, and it's survived an AFD, any information can be merged there, a separate page for this simply isn't necessary. Rehevkor ✉  20:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * However, the references I mentioned above that I've added to the article are specifically about Portable Firefox and directly address your concerns of notability and primary sources which you stated when you nominated this article for deletion. Put simply, anything left (including a possible article merger) is an editorial issue that should be discussed on the relevant talk pages and is not something that should be dealt with via AfD. Both of these references were easily found via Google Books (although Make magazine is not available for preview, I do have a copy of that issue) and both could have been added instead of nominating this for AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep with more references. Do not recommend piggybacking it on the already overloaded main Firefox page. Digita (talk) 21:29, 22 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.