Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemo (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo (file manager)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable software package, released in September 2012. A recent fork of Nautilus (file manager) which already has an article.

in my WP:BEFORE the only thing I found was http://www.zdnet.com/linux-mint-developers-work-on-gnome-file-manager-fork-7000002232/ Gaijin42 (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gaijin42, I had just left you a comment in your talk page a few minutes ago. Regarding comments about this file manager in magazines, news reports, etc I'll post a few found through this search (aside from the one you posted):

In English:

In Spanish:

and one in Hungarian :)

http://linuxmint.hu/blog/mirt-lett-nemo-a-nautilusbl/

Are these links enough to prove notability?. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion, they are fairly WP:ROUTINE coverage from linux fan sites that cover every minor twist and turn, new release, and new rumor. They are just release notices pretty much. No major in-depth reviews, no discussion of lasting impact or influence etc. (It would be unexpected to see such articles so soon in any case, as the package is so new). However, it is certainly not up to just me, and others may consider them sufficient. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly find this file manager as notable (or even more considering the distro it stems from) as the rest that do have articles, ie: Nautilus (file manager), Konqueror, Thunar, Dolphin, PCMan and ROX-Filer. Given how new it is, the fact that it has had that much coverage also points, in my opinion, to a sufficient enough notability. In any case, let's wait to see what other editors think. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so the fact that it is part of a major distro doesn't really mean much (though that enhanced visibility does mean its more likely to get articles written which WOULD eventually show notability). On the other hand, it seems like the bar for linux software packages might be pretty low. On the other-other hand, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS so I dunno. in any case we agree we need the input of others :). I do appreciate yo ubeing so cordial in our discussion though, i certainloy have been on the other side of this, and know what it feels like! :) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I always welcome good faith edits even if they intend to remove a good couple of hours of hard work (just kidding :) If the article is found not suitable for its inclusion in WP I'll just keep it sandbox'd until/if it attains notability (or not). Cheers. Gaba p (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEMP. "Routine news" is for when one event is covered by media in the place of a few days and then forgotten; this is not the case here, since the reviews span several months. Diego (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think it is notable and should be kept. -Brendan Kehoe Brendankehoe (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. Why is it notable? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think its notable given the extensive coverage it has received in several technology oriented media as I presented above. I could be wrong though. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.