Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermium


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Supermium

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Supporting old versions of Windows is a large enough niche, and the article already has 2 external refs because of it. (Plus there are plenty of other browser articles for even smaller, less-relevant niches.) -Pmffl (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * mjd made a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsSMmdwh89Y plus backporting is not easy esspcialy to windows xp and it has restored support for a lot of things
 * -Aero Glass and Aero Glass-style titlebars instead of Windows 10-style ones (#force-xp-theme in chrome://flags for the latter)
 * -Turnaround for major vulnerability patches generally less than one week from upstream disclosure
 * -A functional sandbox for enhanced security
 * -Google Sync
 * -On Windows 7 and up, Widevine CDM support for viewing DRM content
 * -GDI font rendering, using #force-gdi in chrome://flags
 * -Persistent dark mode on the browser's UI elements, using #force-dark-mode in chrome://flags
 * -Custom tab options including trapezoidal tabs, transparent tabs, and outlined tabs
 * -Many flags from ungoogled-chromium
 * -Support for SSE2-only processors in the 32 bit build 74.92.169.153 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Being a fork or knock-off does not disqualify.--2601:444:7F:53A0:A1BD:97C3:2A74:18FC (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Please provide policy-based opinions on what should happen to this article, this is not an article talk page to discuss the article or list features. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist and hoping for some thoughtful participation by editors new to the discussion with opinions based in policy. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * WE should keep this because this is probably the best browser for Xp/Vista and 7 that will ever come to exist. Archiving is important. 71.11.225.163 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Appears to have 1 actual non-self-published third-party source, which is . Needs a second one for notability but it's dubious if a second exists. That said, not sure where it would go in the Chromium article. Probably best to Merge unless at least one more reliable source can be found, and then even, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete : This subject lacks ANY reliable sourcing directly detailing the subject. Page was created by a blocked sockpuppet. !votes by ip editors in this process are completely ignoring the lack of reliable sources, and are likely connected to the sockmaster. Based on a reasonable BEFORE, one can see this is a fringe product with a microscopic userbase. BusterD (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have struck through my previous delete. I still don't think the sources are super, but I'll concede the source analysis below is more compelling than my less detailed assertions. BusterD (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I gaze into my orb and I ponder this article -- I see reliable third-party independent coverage in the Register article. This was indeed created by a blocked sock, but it wasn't a UPE; the sockmaster seems to have been blocked for acting childish, not for anything related to COI or spam et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

<ul><li>Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.<ol> <li> The review notes: "Supermium is a browser based on the Google Chrome 121 codebase that works fine on Windows 7 and even, for the truly desperate, for Vista and XP. The third-party adaptation of Chrome works on versions of Windows that the official product no longer supports. It installs and runs on Windows 7, which stopped getting updates for Edge and Chrome at the start of 2023. It's even able to log into a Google account, as well as synchronize settings and addons."</li> <li> The article notes: "Supermium, as the name suggests, comes from the open source Chromium project, which is based on Chrome, Edge, Opera, Vivaldi and other browsers. But all of them require Windows 10 and later. However, in his Chromia offshoot, Fournier rewrote the code so that Windows XP SP3 or Windows Server 2003 SP2 and later are sufficient to run. ... Because it's in the Chromium core, it supports modern extensions, and even current websites will work on old systems. In Windows 7 and later, the Widevine plugin is also functional, so Netflix and other video libraries that rely on this type of anti-piracy protection will run in the browser."</li> <li> The review notes: "Given how powerful nostalgia can be for those who grow tired of the rather sterile and minimalist design of nowadays’ operating systems, a brief return to the past can be made easier with Supermium whenever internet browsing is part of the equation."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Supermium to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * (1) is the only reliable source of those three. It isn't clear to me who Václavík is and the Zamfir article is self-published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Roberto Zamfir is listed as a Softpedia editor. The article is not self-published. Lukáš Václavík is a reviewer for the Czech News Center magazine Živě.cz. I consider both articles to be independent reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Czech News Center is one of the largest media houses in the Czech Republic. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I'd presume that they're reliable. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Two of the Keep votes center around arguments that aren't related to sourcing. Since this AfD is about sourcing, they're irrelevant. The other two refer to an article from The Register, but notability requires multiple sources, not just one. Given this, I'm inclined to vote to delete. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * notability requires multiple sources -- no it doesn't. Notability even says so explicitly. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 04:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per new sources found. Aaron Liu  (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.