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 Sufficient reliable sources are included in the article. However, a point to people working on this article: forum posts are not reliable sources and should be replaced with reliable sources or the information removed if it cannot be reliably sourced. JoshuaZ 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swiftfox[edit]

Swiftfox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No assertion of notability separate from that of Firefox. Unlike (for example) Flock there has been no coverage by independent sources. Wikipedia isn't here to be a list of every custom build of Firefox. Cynical 10:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We can't call the article 'Mozilla Swiftfox' as it is not a Mozilla product. The reason it's called SwiftFox in the first place (instead of just Firefox) is precisely because of the trademark issues surrounding Mozilla and its products. Cynical 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.