Talk:Light (web browser)

Merge Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge as an alternative to deletion; short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Because of the lack of content on this particular version of Firefox, this page probably should be merged into the main Firefox article in the Unofficial Ports section. Either that, or simply delete the wiki page. --NinLEGWho 23:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarhOuh (talk • contribs)

Oppose. This is one of many unofficial forks of Firefox, which are not covered in the Firefox article. Even the official forks like Firefox Focus are described in their own articles because they are standalone browsers. Therefore the various unofficial forks of Firefox either have their own articles (because are notable enough on their own merit) or do not have any record on Wikipedia at all. Please note that this practice is consistent for all browsers. At most, we should add list of Firefox or Gecko-based browsers to their corresponding pages similar to one in Chromium article. If this browser is not notable enough on its own merit, I propose deletion of the article altogether.Anton.bersh (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Since its release in 2013 (10 years ago), its notability has not increased beyond it being a lightweight third-party fork made by a mozilla forum member. It has not been updated since 2016 (7 years ago) and I can find no more secondary sources. The entire article could be condensed to one sentence in the Firefox article (I believe the third-party fork section is correct - unofficial ports seems to denote unofficial operating systems support and not different features). According to Anton.bersh above, this section was not present at the time of the original merge proposal, so I think a merge is appropriate. Lightbloom (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I proposed deletion of this article stub because:

1. The browser evidently is an Abandonware.

The last activity on Sourceforge (browser's preferred distribution platform) is from 2016. The site (blog) last posting is from 2014. There is no indication that a new release will ever be updated.

2. Lack of Notability (WP:NOTE)

There are only three secondary sources that do not really contain any details. The article is just 3 sentences (68 words) long. I could not find any information on browser that would be worth including (so this stub will likely never be converted into a proper article).

3. No one should use network-exposed software without security updates.

This browser is based on Firefox 48 and Firefox since then released multiple High-severity vulnerability fixes, some of which were actively exploited.

Anton.bersh (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest caution before deleting, and maybe the merge proposal above would be a better way to do this, but yeah, if it's not notable anymore this page probably has no purpose. And I won't take it personally, I still have the X68000 and fsn (file manager) page improvements to be proud of 😄 (Yes, that's a total brag.) That being said, while you make a good point that nobody should be using networked abandonware, I don't think that actually bears any impact on this subject's notability. Xmoogle (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the prod. Point 1 is not a good reason per WP:DEFUNCTS. 3 independent sources (i.e. excluding the SourceForge page) which deal solely with the topic indicate that there might be more content which could be put in the article, and they seem to be sufficient to meet the GNG criteria of coverage by multiple independent sources - unless you can convince me that none of those is actually reliable. Secondary sources are also what is generally preferred, and "do not really contain any details" seems misleading given the content of the articles. Reason 3 has no bearing on Wikipedia. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Vigorously oppose. If #1 were true (I have no idea if it is or not) then all the more reason to have an explanatory article here. #2 is silly, there are many articles on more arcane and less useful topics on wikipedia. At the very least, the fact that I came here to find info indicates that there's some interest. #3. Mind your own damn business, I will use whatever software I please, and you can butt out. Don't you DARE tell me what I can use on my own computer. STFU. 203.160.69.73 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)