Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthodox 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Orthodox file manager
Anon has expressed doubts about the validity of this term and asked for its deletion, calling it a "hoax" and arguing it is not an established term anywhere. Rather than "hoax", a better term for what he means would probably be "non-notable and unverified neologism". Procedural nomination, no vote from me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance, Fut.Perf. My reasons for asking for deletion are the following:
 * Googling for "orthodox file manager" (with quotes) yelds a measly 305 results.
 * The term is never mentioned in the Jargon file, the most notable and comprehensive hacker slang dictionary.
 * The term "orthodox" is not even mentioned in the web site of GNU Midnight Commander, probably the most notable example of Norton Commander clone in use nowadays.
 * So, my opinion is that this entry looks like an attempt by somebody to use Wikipedia either to add authority to his own neologism, or to add "orthodoxy" to their file managers of choice. --88.149.168.128 11:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly not a well-recognised term - seems to be coined by this website. I would guess most people would call these "norton commander clones" - that term gets far more google hits.  Either move or delete.  Googling for "Orthodox file manager" -wikipedia -Bezroukov gets only 400 hits.  Morwen - Talk 10:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Quite a lot of other articles (such as ZIP (file format), GNOME_Commander and 7-Zip) link to this article, which might indicate some notability, so I'm not really sure this is a made-up term. Any thoughts? Jayden54 12:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but two questions: who added those links? And people often accidentally propogate neologisms within Wikipedia : did they have sources other than Orthodox file manager itself.  Morwen - Talk 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge with file manager. From a (superficial) search through Google articles, it seems that the neologism was coined and propagated by SoftPanorama/Bezroukov, but it caught up to a certain extent. I'm undecided whether the term should be used in Wikipedia; IMO it functions a bit better than "Commander clone" or "Commander-like file manager", but then file manager is fairly empty and could better serve as a summary article than this "neo-logistic" one. Duja ► 14:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep or move. It is both obvious that the class of file managers described in the article exists & it is a notable collection of file managers (and the term is preferable to "Norton Commander-style file manager" or similar alternatives).  There have been no strong arguments for deletion & the strongest objections come from an anonymous user.  The term has been used by the developers of Krusader and other popular file managers, as well as in news articles.  There is a dmoz sub-category "orthodox" under "file managers."  While a google search for 'orthodox "file manager"' does produce false positives, a quick survey of some of the first hits (from 13,200 total) suggest that some people call these "orthodox twin-pane file managers" or "orthodox two-panel file managers" or other permutations of 2/two/twin/dual pane/panel.  Another semi-popular alternative is "orthodox or NC-style file manager." --Karnesky 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would "orthodox file manager" (305 Google hits) be preferrable to "Commander style file manager" (15000 Google hits) ? What does "orthodox" mean? That's complete nonsense. So I'll say that the only "orthodox" file manager is the Macintosh Finder. Go ahead and contradict me. --88.149.168.128 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion for DELETING the article & was prompted by your comments. Now you are arguing to move (rename) the article.  As such, I think this should be speedily closed as keep & talk of a page move should go onto the discussion page. --Karnesky 17:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing it should be moved. I'm arguing it should be deleted.--88.149.168.128 18:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So why'd you ask about "Commander style file manager?" I'll treat that question as if it was sincere.  As AoR notes, it is a clumsier term.  It also promotes a particular piece of software over others.  As for your other challenge, you have pointed out multiple pages that use "orthodox" to refer to a class of file managers resembling NC/mc/emelfm/krusader/etc.  Playing the same google game shows only four hits for "'macintosh finder' 'orthodox file manager'" and none of the hits claims the finder is an OFM. --Karnesky 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I never asked for the entry to be moved to "Commander style file manager". I'm asking you why you are saying that a term which yelds 305 Google hits should be preferred to a term which yelds 15000 Google hits. Moreover, seeing as the number of Google hits evidently doesn't matter in your view, the fact that a Google search for "macintosh finder" "orthodox file manager" yelds only 4 hits shouldn't constitute a valid objection to my (clearly fictional) point that the Macintosh Finder is the only orthodox file manager in the world.--88.149.168.128 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about the coherent content of pages? It was easy to see that none of those four pages referred to Finder as an OFM.  It is straight forward to see that most of the thousands of pages which mention orthodox file managers are describing the same thing. --Karnesky 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, "orthodox file manager" doesn't return "thousands" of pages. It returns a LOW number of pages, which means that the phrase is not wide-spread and it's used mainly by its proponent(s). As for the fact that no one is referring to the Finder as an "orthodox file manager", that's probably due to the fact that I didn't put up a web page calling the Finder "orthodox", nor did I make up a Wikipedia entry for "orthodox file manager" where I say that the Mac Finder is the only orthodox file manager.--88.149.166.153 09:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * about 1970 results for "orthodox file manager"
 * about 13,400 results for orthodox "file manager" (some false positives)
 * --Karnesky 13:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The second search is not relevant because it includes all the pages where the word "orthodox" is unrelated to "file manager". 1970 hits for "orthodox file manager" is of course ridicolous, and it just goes to prove my point. It also makes sense to suppose that a considerable part of those pages have had Wikipedia itself as a source.--88.149.166.153 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You claimed that a search didn't "yeld" (sic) thousands of pages. I showed this wasn't the case (even the most conservative search gives close to 2000 hits).  How is this "ridicouluous" (sic)?  I did point out that there were false positives in the second search.  However, as I also stated, it catches many other pages that refer to file managers as being orthodox (because some people use orthodox as one in a series of adjectives).  --Karnesky 21:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1970 pages is not "thousands of pages". The second search is useless unless you also cite the exact number of false positives.--88.149.166.153 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -  Seen and used the term before ever seeing it on wp or wp-sourced sites, all other collective terms for this group of file managers are even more clumsy. Ace of Risk 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Ace of Risk. --Gwern (contribs) 21:10 28 November 2006 (GMT)
 * Keep per Karnesky — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. If need be, move the term later. --Arny 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Number of Google results does not necessarily show anything and neologisms are not necessarily bad. Moreover, it is used and this article is useful - it helped me understand the term when I came accross it. Much ado about nothing. I 'd like to add that a good cyclopedia tells you about things that have 300 google hits, including neologisms. Why wikipedia it when we can google it ? The Ubik 03:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if I coin the phrase "kazoo-playing file manager" and somehow get it to spread to less than 2000 web pages, I am welcome to write a Wikipedia entry about it? Interesting...--88.149.166.153 10:37, 30 November 2006 (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.