Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCMan 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. J04n(talk page) 11:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

PCMan File Manager

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This software is not famous to the degree it would be found in an encyclopedia. disclaimer: I have used this software. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour  ♪ talk ♪ 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - PCManFM is the standard file manager for LXDE, like Konqueror / Dolphin_(software) is the standard file manager for KDE, or Thunar for Xfce, or Nautilus for GNOME and so on. I don't see a valid reason for AfD. Toffanin (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Fame isn't required for inclusion in Wikipedia, and it isn't a valid reason for deletion. I've added a couple of references to reviews by Linux Today and Unixmen to the article to help establish notability of the topic. With no valid criterion for deletion and with likely notability, I recommend keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue with you, but a review from a blog called "Unixmen" typically does not warrant automatic entry to an encyclopedia. I will go further and say we should probably not have Wikipedia articles every time the Unixmen blog writes about a product.   AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fair criticism. In the technology media there are a number of websites that I like to call "journalistic"; they are more than some random person's blog but less than a professional news outfit. I think Unixmen fits into that category of marginally reliable sources, in the form of a blog with a wide readership, but it is obviously a gray area and a somewhat subjective assessment on my part. --Mark viking (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep article needs work but passes GNG. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2013 (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.