Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viewnior


 * 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 delete for now. The article can be recreated once more reliable sources become avaiable. If anybody needs the text of the article in their user space to work on it, ping any administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Viewnior

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article about a software product does not establish any grounds for notability. Only two references are given, one primary source and one self published blog. Notability requires that the topic have been the been the subject of non-trivial, reliable, secondary sources. A google search for additional sources could find only trivial references to product specs or download links with no reviews or other descriptions of the product. As such the article is nominated for deletion as per WP:N. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. The omgubuntu source is very brief, and not substantial enough to establish notability. A search turns up no additional RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made a few changes to the page. These include adding a number of secondary sources as well as explicitly listing a number of Linux distributions that use Viewnior bundled in the default OS setup (e.g. as a measure of the software's significatance within the FOSS community). In addition, in comparison with a number of articles listed on the Comparison of image viewers page (endorsed by the WikiProject_Computing and WikiProject_Software groups), this page seems both appropriate within the scope of the project to have a categorical and organized list of image viewers and in fact is very similar to a number of pages referenced on this list which presumably hold the community opinion that they are appropriate for Wikipedia. Therefore I believe that the Viewnior page should not be deleted.Punk physicist (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * can you look at the guide at How to contribute to AfD and form your replies accordingly. The computing and software projects are not exempt from the overall rules about what articles should be on Wikipedia. The four main guides are notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V),reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) and you should base your answer on them. Just because on image viewer is notable, does not mean that all image viewer are notable. Just because someone linked to this article, does not mean that the community in general endorses that article or that link. Comparison of image viewers is not a 'featured article' so there is no indication that community endorses it. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. My origional comment was meant to address the arguments that this article does not meet WP:N by 2 points:
 * The article in question is very similar in nature and scope to a large class of articles, many listed in the Comparison of image viewers article. As evidence for this (and to increase the quality of the article itself), a number of new references have been added.
 * The fact that the software is used in a number of Linux distributions (3 explicitly mentioned in the article with citations) is evidence that it is significant to the Linux community itself and thus by extension is evidence of being notable itself as an import tool for a major community.
 * Disclosure: please note that I'm the article's creator, but I have no other personal relation or vested interest with this subject. Punk physicist (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither of these two points address WP:N at all. No.1 is true, there are other articles about similar things but that only addresses WP:NOT. Something are more noteworthy than others. Some songs have their own articles, but not all songs. Some athletes have there own articles, but not all athletes. You can't argue that because some image viewers have their own article that all image viewers should have there own articles. I made that point already above. No.2 is irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. Inclusion within distribution of linux does not provide sufficient grounds for notability.


 * Establishing notability is a simple process – provide several sources that give reliable information about the topic. For example a review is a magazine or newspaper, a chapter in a book, a section of a TV show or a paper in a science journal. From these we can establish notability, we can satisfy the reliable sources requirement and we thus satisfy verifiability. All that allows us to create a Wikipedia article that everyone can agree is usable. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, as not meeting the WP:GNG. This is not a comment on the software itself, which I'm sure is very good.  However, I was not able to find independent, reliable sources that discuss the software in any depth.  There are two "reviews" included in the article, but the sites that review them are one-man operations, self-published, and explicitly therefore they don't count as reliable sources.  I haven't been able to find anything better while searching myself that indicates that this might pass one of the notability guidelines.  Sorry.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete. Lots of references, but they're all either self-sourced or blogs which carry no real significance.  Need to see (and I'm not seeing)  significant mentions in mainstream press, so fails WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:GNG for being within top 5 image viewers, lightweight. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 09:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable third-party coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG., this seems like a good candidate for putting in your userspace for now, and resubmitting it once Viewnior has more reliable source mentions. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 14:57, 16 May 2014 (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.