Deletion of Viewnior

Comment: My origional comment was meant to address the arguments that this article does not meet  by 2 points
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . {{U|Punk physicist}}, this seems like a good candidate for putting in your userspace for now, and resubmitting it once Viewnior has more reliable source mentions. '''''D
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as not meeting the .  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: per  for being within top 5 image viewers, lightweight.http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2010121702035MMSWRLhttp://www.tuxarena.com/2011/02/top-5-image-viewers-for-ubuntukubuntu/http://dasublogbyprashanth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/review-crunchbang-linux-10-statler.htmlhttp://distrowatch.com/?newsid=06694http://www.bristolwatch.com/rpi/rpi_viewnior.htm
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)