Micro (text editor): "[D]esigned around simplicity and ease of use" also makes the article quite promotional.  Coco bb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs ) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The promotional wording wasn't intentional.  Anyhow in the context of WP:NSOFT, having 20k stars on GitHub and coverage in Linux Magazine and many other FOSS-focused sites makes it notability imo.  Wqwt ( talk ) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : has decent coverage in Linux Magazine , ItsFoss , HowToGeek , and MakeUseOf .  StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm.  I'm inclined to add a single sentence on GNU nano and redirect there.  I don't think the sourcing is quite sufficent to justify a separate article yet.  Github stars aren't really something we can write an article from, and how to guides aren't that great either, and that , rather than a measure of how significant or important something is, is what "notability" means here.  A single sentence shouldn't be too undue either Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The sourcing seems comparable to say Geany or Kate or Code::Blocks .  Surely you would consider Linux Magazine a RS.  Is there a consensus on itsFoss as a source?  MakeUseOf seems to be a borderline case.   In the context of FOSS applications, which are still niche in coverage compared to Windows and Mac programs, there is extensive coverage here.  Wqwt ( talk ) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not aware of any prior consensus regarding It's FOSS either on RSN or elsewhere, but based on their about page and what I know of them, they're a group blog, not something that has a formal editorial review process.  Not that I would be unhappy if this is kept, either also as no consensus or outright, I just don't think there is sufficient consensus for a carve out for FOSS from the usual coverage based requirements.  Though, to be honest, I'm fairly sure most Windows and Mac programs wouldn't be notable either.  Alpha3031 ( t • c ) 09:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : The Linux Magazine link is the only applied or presented source which in my opinion passes RS (and it's not that great as direct detailing).  The FOSS, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf are not reliable sources because they are providing software usage instructions, not a directly detailing product review or coverage of the product or producer.  My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better.  BusterD ( talk ) 00:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Linux Magazine is the only source that is reliable enough to establish notability.  There isn't anything outright wrong with the rest of the sources, but I can't come up with a compelling defense for why those sources are reliable enough to establish notability.  This is a sourcing discussion, and this subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards with respect to sourcing.  I also couldn't find any sources not in the article that could establish notability, which is kind of shocking considering how many stars it has on GitHub.  HyperAccelerated ( talk ) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge to GNU nano per above, this doesn't seem like enough for a standalone article but certainly enough for a mention in the article about nano.  jp × g 🗯️ 00:50, 30 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect