Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swiftweasel


 * 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 since nobody here wants to have the article deleted and this is indeed not the place for merge discussions, which may be continued elsewhere, taking into account that there is no imperative that different forks need to have different articles. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Swiftweasel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Although it is a good branch of Swiftfox and Iceweasel, this article merely repeats the content of the Swiftfox article, but mentions the fact that it is "fully free". I think this would be better off merged into Swiftfox or Iceweasel's article. ViperSnake151 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per nom to Swiftfox Iceweasel, doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own page. We've had Firefox, Iceweasel, Swiftfox, Swiftweasel... What next? Fishweasel? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would probably belong better in Iceweasel than Swiftfox - the former is another similar fork; the latter is an extension. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, no, it's not. (I could have sworn it used to be an extension.) Swiftfox is probably the correct merge after all. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that this stays. The only reason I have found this talk page is because I was looking for info on swiftweasel.  I just searched for on google to find out if 'swiftweasel' versus one of the others was what I had installed on a previous system, hoping for a picture of the logo to remind me, and the entry confirmed this.  Worked perfectly.  Some more on what "fully free" means, and a history of the split would be good, but I think it's great that the entry exists as it does (expansion can follow at any point).  It appeals primarily to a subpopulation, but so what?  We are not bound by the size of the book we are creating.  If swiftweasel per se dies out (no new development and low use) then at that point combining it under firefox/swiftfox or whatever makes sense.  Skandha101 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the page should stay. The application is listed on a few pages other than its own. Its different in that it is optimized and free vs swiftfox which is is not free, but a proprietary build under a proprietary license. Swiftweasel also has defalut extensions that are not default in any other build. Swiftweasel comes in 64bit versions, all others are pure 32bit. The project also is currently building Swiftdove a optimized build of Thunderbird. Kilz (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Iceweasel would also not be a good choice for merge, because the iceweasel page deals with the fact that Debian created Iceweasel as a fork because of the Debian free software guidelines. There is no information that Swiftweasel is built for Debian, in fact its .deb files numbered and named for Ubuntu. Kilz (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a few reasons why I think that deletion or merger is not appropriate.


 * 1) Swiftfox is a proprietary application under a proprietary license. It dose not contain the same default extensions. Its not open source.
 * 2) Swiftweasel has 64 bit builds. It is the only Mozilla linux build with 64bit builds. All others are 32bit, even the packages for 64bit prossessors on Swiftfox are 32bit.
 * 3) It contains defalut extensions like adblock plus, user agent switcher, and quick local switcher.
 * 4) It has its own settings directorty while swiftfox uses the firefox settings directory.
 * 5) The swiftweasel project now also builds Swiftdove a mail client with the lightning plugin installed by default. Making it the first to create a optimised build of a mail client.
 * 6) Per the creators own words, Swiftweasel is not a fork of Iceweasel or Swiftfox, merge with either of these pages would be wrong.
 * 7) Swiftweasels popularity is steady and possibly growing according to the hits/download statistics for the project. Kilz (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

While the page does look like a copy of the Swiftfox page, Swiftweasel is a very different product and, I believe, should have its own article. If anything, the article needs a bit more information about what makes Swiftweasel unique. I use Swiftweasel primarily because there is a 32-bit build made for 64-bit Ubuntu that allows the Sun Java Plug-in to function. Swiftfox does not. By the same logic, Iceweasel should be grouped with Firefox. Dan Forward (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you all this is not the place for discussing mergers. If the nominator thinks the article should be merged but not deleted, he should start an appropriate discussion on the article's talk page (Talk:Swiftweasel). --Angelo (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As a 64 bit and 32 bit Ubuntu user, I strongly disagree with deleting or merging. Here's why: - Swiftweasel has 64 bit builds. It is the only Mozilla Linux build with 64bit builds. - Swiftfox is a proprietary application under a proprietary license and is not open source. It doesn't contain default extensions. - It has its own settings directory while Swiftfox uses the Firefox settings directory. - The Swiftweasel project now also builds Swiftdove; which is an email client, making it the first build to create a optimized build of a mail client. I use Swiftweasel primarily because there is a 32-bit build made for 64-bit Ubuntu that allows the Sun Java Plug-in to function. Swiftfox doesn't. If anything, Swiftfox and Iceweasel should be considered for merging under Swiftweasel. --Guilden NL (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I use Swiftweasel, over and above Firefox as it's more inline with use of the end user. There is lot's of features to it that's different from other versions, and it has 64 bit versions that is being tweaked all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B647888 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is not to explain why Swiftweasel is better than Firefox, but to prove if and why the subject is notable to stay in the Wikipedia. By the way, the Swiftweasel creator has left a message three days ago suggesting the software user to participate and "cast a vote to keep the page", nevertheless I have to remind you that voting is evil. Personally I think this discussion should be moved ASAP at Talk:Swiftweasel, because it's basically about a merge proposal and not about the subject's own notability which seems to be agreed by everyone here. --Angelo (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Granted this page is not following the standard discussion of deletion. As such the keep votes will probably win. Because the merge votes state that the voters believe that the information belongs in wikipedia, be it some other page. As for notability. Swiftweasel is now being installed by Automatix. Is included in Arch linux repositories. It is listed in Softpedia. Its web page statistics say it has 3k hits a day, with 200-400 a day downloads. It is listed in numerous blogs, forum posts and other pages that talk about its differences and improvements. While they cant be used to prove points about the browser, they do prove that its being noticed and talked about. Ill even toss in Smashing Magazine while it didnt get reviewed it was mentioned and its icon used. That the developer is pointing out its up for deletion isnt a desired thing in your view, it shows that it is well enough known to maybe have some wikipedia editors as users. The developer didnt ask for people to do anything dishonest. Im doing my best to sort through the 33 pages of google results daily to find more links. I have also tried to add more to the page. I will just keep working on it Kilz (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 17:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The matter is simple. Firefox has a list of forks. Swiftweasel is one of those forks. It is a different fork from the forks you mention. Therefore it must be in a different article from the ones you mention. The structure of those articles should be very similar, but the content should differ in the parts where the forks differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.117.23 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If does not violate the copyright of any other article, there is no reason to be merged into firefox ,swiftfox, iceweasel, since they are different builds and "products". Tblu (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2008 (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.