Talk:SpaceFM

Re: Notability
I'm not well versed in the established norms & workflow for wiki edits (I'm a baby editor just trying out being involved), so faux pas may be unavoidable—please accept my apologies and assurances of good intent here at the beginning. My initial assumption, having had my removal of the notability flag reverted, is that I was wrong to remove it in the first place. However, the notice itself says "secondary source" "independent of the topic" "providing significant coverage beyond a mere mention". So it seems like these examples of third-party, published attention would suffice: … but since turning up those links took all of 30 seconds with DuckDuckGo, I assume that if they were adequate Dialectric wouldn't have bothered with the flag.
 * http://www.webupd8.org/2012/02/spacefm-highly-customizable-multi-pane.html
 * https://www.slant.co/options/7579/~spacefm-review
 * https://www.linux.com/learn/mount-samba-shares-spacefm
 * http://www.ubuntu-user.com/Magazine/Archive/2014/20/SpaceFM-universal-file-manager

Having made (what I hope is) a good faith effort to work my way through the available guidelines on the issue, I'm still not clear on how to proceed. I'm going to defer to Dialectric's greater experience and leave the flag in place. But I'd quite like to have an explanation—for my own edification.
 * 1) Are the sources provided above in-adequate proof of notability as defined by Wikipedia? What criteria do they fail and where are those criteria elucidated?
 * 2) How do we account for the fact that the software in question is voluntarily packaged by numerous Linux distributions for their users? Does this count as third-party "attention" for establishing "notability"? Should it?
 * 3) is there a place within the article where sources proving notability are supposed to be placed? It's obvious that earlier editors believed the subject to be notable (otherwise why write the article in the first place), but there is no record of their reasons. Assuming (hypothetically) that I have adequate proof to establish notability for the article presently, what do I do with it? If I simply revert the flag, the next user with doubts about the significance of the subject, would simply replace the flag and on and on in perpetuity.
 * 4) Is the talk page the proper place to post these question? Is there some forum I ought to be aware of? --J-Reis (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've only waited 4 days, and over a holiday no less, but I'd quite like to mark this off my inchoatus list. So I've removed the notability tag. I think this is the correct action based on my understanding of the guidelines and the be bold directive therein. No affront intended to anyone, please feel free to correct any mistakes on my part! --J-Reis (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the accessibility of contributing to new users
The linked section of the notability guidelines (Products & Services) simply doesn't say anything useful regarding this article. It isn't a company or an organization or a product thereof. Basically it makes no sense trying to apply any of that to a substantial portion of Free & Open Source Software. In fact, nothing in Notability (organizations and companies) made clear to me how I should move ahead proving "notability" for SpaceFM or any other commonly used FOSS application.

So I worked back until I arrived at the general notability guideline and the definition of "published" provided in the Verifiability guidelines. Is that even correct? If so we could save folks a lot of time and remove a hurdle for new editors by making the notice associated with the "notability" flag actually link to these articles. --J-Reis (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Dormant vor dead
Is this project dead vor just dormant? --109.42.2.2 (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)