Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seahorse (software)

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seahorse (software)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Barely any reference or notability. Greatder (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are a few independent articles separate from GNOME sources, including [1]. Meets WP:SOFT#Inclusion 1 and 4, since it is also in many notable Linux review sites. Peace, Thorn6130✝ (talk, ask questions, dispute) 14:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thorn6130 Just like user raccoon said below, itsfoss was deemed not a quality source by the wikiproject on foss some time ago. Greatder (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although itsfoss.com isn't really a reliable source, I found some lengthy tutorials about Seahorse in published books: [2] [3]. Should be enough for WP:SOFT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon Are tutorials enough to pass that? No proper independent assessment of the software? Greatder (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP: NSOFT#3: "A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if ... it is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers." These are instruction books, so these sources establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperAccelerated the authors seem professional. I guess this passes notability, then. I vote keep then. Greatder (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Helpful Raccoon. I read the sources and verified that they establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2025 (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.