Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floppyfw
I don't accept that snow close of this article is at all appropriate, nor was the NOM's original speedy delete idea, which was declined. ((It's akin to stamping on insects because you don't know what they are, and can't be bothered to find out) Did no-one read , or act on it? Originally, this began as just a comment, but I've added two fairly detailed secondary review articles that shows it meets  and , plus a more detailed independent paper which comes out in its favour. And it has mentions in quite a few Special:WhatLinksHere/Floppyfw|"What links here?" pages, though often through incorporation in templates. So rushing to delete is not appropriate. The question is: does it meet ? Having done the investigation into a field I admittedly know absolutely nothing about, I think it does. viz. ''"It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability."'' I think it just  gets there
— User:Nick, 13:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NSOFTWARE (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)