Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nnn (file manager)


 * 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 no consensus. The relevant question here is whether significant coverage about this topic exists in independent, reliable sources to support the notability of this topic. While some editors asserted that the sources in the article were sufficient for this purpose, the analysis of those sources was not detailed enough to overcome the WP:GNG deletion argument—indeed, there was no response to the challenges to the reliability and independence of the sources in the article. Nevertheless, with only two editors agreeing the article should be deleted, I also do not see a consensus to delete this article either. Mz7 (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nnn (file manager)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are entirely primary. Searches turn up no published, significant coverage of subject. List of articles at the end of the software's Github readme are either blog posts or software catalog descriptions. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 22:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that there are now about six good review-style article links, so I think notability is pretty clear. - Snori (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Article references seems to have improved markedly since the AfD, and it's quite clear that it's a widely known piece of software in it's niche. - Snori (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to have some independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not enough that there are more independent references. Sources must cover the topic in a significant way. The new "sources" that have been added are the literal readme from the repo, and a few listicles from Linux websites that have passing mentions to the software. Wikipiedia is not supposed to be a comprehensive collection of all software tools in the world. If this software becomes notable, it'll get an article eventually. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  05:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - it seems that none of the third-party sources satisfy the guidance given in WP:RS: "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.", and further, most of the topic uses primary sources TEDickey (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - There has been several attempts to improve the article. Looks like deletion-decisions are driven by external references and not on actual merits of the program. Immediately after I added some improvements user TEDickey reverted them. If you have suggestions add inline and the program users who are interested may cater to them. Do not remove valid details just because you have no idea how the program works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.235.102 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - What's this outrage about third-party sources that originally prompted to include this page to deletion list? Unrelated sources are going to ascertain that documented capabilities of a utility (which actually work as documented) are genuine? By your actions and comments it looks like all tech web articles are unreliable. Deletionists - please use the program and revert back with data that disproves the documentation instead of googling third-party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.235.102 (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking second ‘Keep’ !vote by this IP editor. You may only !vote once. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Snori. — Labdajiwa (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2020 (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.