Does Nibbana mean not self?

The meaning of the text is clear. Nibbana is nothing but not-self.

I don't think that's clear.

He're the original text:

Aniccā sabbe saṅkhārā,
dukkhānattā ca saṅkhatā;
Nibbānañceva paññatti,
anattā iti nicchayā.

I translate as:

[impermanent] [is every] [conditioned thing]
[painful and not-self] [and] [conditioned]
[in-the-case-of nibanna] [description]
[not-self] [thus it is] [certainly]

I think that may be saying that "nibanna is a description" and "therefore not self".

I don't know how to reconcile that with the doctrine that "nibanna isn't conditioned" (or "is unconditioned").

But anyway I think the chief characteristic of nibanna is that it's a state that's free of attachments and cravings ... and not just "free" but "permanently free" ... and therefore free of dukkha.

The fact that nibanna is also anatta is a kind of a side-effect (e.g. a lack of attachment to "self").

I think it's wrong to say "Nibbana is nothing but not-self" or that "Nibbana is only not-self" ... I think that nibanna is more (or less) than that, it is unattached to (unconditioned by) anything and everything, not just "self".

My question is: Does Nibbana means not self?

I think it is not-self, but it doesn't mean "not-self".

Like France is a country, but doesn't mean "a country".

The word "meaning" was added by the English-language translator/translation you quoted, fwiw.

Is there any quote to support "Even a stream winner or sotapanna would have overcome the self-view but would not have attained Nibbana yet."?

I hope you'll find the answers to this topic: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

I have found a text which states that

nibbāna is a description meaning not-self.

Actually, that translation is mistake, because the translator has not enough knowledge to translate it. So, what is the knowledge which the translator has to know to translate this text?

VN Pañcasitikakhandhaka & VN Parivāra identify Upāli authored that text; Upāli is Sāriputta's student; And sāriputta authored abhidhamma-pitaka; So there are many abhidhamma's style text inside VN Parivāra; Therefore, If the translator want to translate VN Parivāra's pāli, he need abhidhamma-knowledge:

Aniccā sabbe saṅkhārā, dukkhānattā ca saṅkhatā;

Nibbānañceva paññatti, anattā iti nicchayā.

Saṅkhāra, which means saṅkhata(effect-saṅkhāra)*, is anicca&dukkha&anattā;

But only nibbāna&paññatti which are explained just as anattā.

*Saṅkhāra, which means cause-saṅkhāra, use in more fixed meaning word, such as saṅkhāra-khandha, saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda. You can notice it in each context, because it is already appear clearly.

Anatta or not-self is a characteristic of all phenomena (including Nibbana), regardless of whether they are conditioned or unconditioned, compounded or uncompounded, permanent or impermanent.

Nibbana is the phenomena which is the end of suffering. It's unconditioned, uncompounded and not impermanent. It's also not-self.

Samsara and dukkha (suffering) are also not-self.

Even a stream winner or sotapanna would have overcome the self-view but would not have attained Nibbana yet. In order for the stream winner to reach Nibbana, he needs to overcome the remainder of the ten fetters.

Everything is not-self including Nibbana. But Nibbana is much more than that. It is the end of suffering.

Much like Sankha and Ruben2020 have said, I think it is imperative to understand that selflessness is an apt description of all persons and phenomena, including nirvana. That is, there is nothing which isn't selfless. Another way of saying this is that all things lack inherent existence; including nirvana. There is nothing neither existent nor non-existent that cannot be described as utterly lacking a self.

But nirvana is not a person so how can it be said to be selfless? Also, it is not an impermanent phenomena so how can it be said to be selfless?

One part of the confusion here is that it is usually thought that the Pali Canon is only part of the First Turning of the Wheel of Dharma. However, I don't think this is strictly true. The Second Turning of the Wheel of Dharma can be found in the Pali Canon. In Sutras like this and for instance the Kaccayanagotta Sutta we see the Buddha giving teachings that to my mind are very clearly part of the Second Turning. These teachings are elaborated on by the Buddha in strictly Mayahana Sutras and by the Virtuous Teachers such as Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise of the Middle Way devotes an entire chapter to nirvana and how it is selfless. So how do the Second Turning Virtuous Teachers say that nirvana is selfless?

Nirvana is not a person and yet it utterly lacks any inherent existence. This is how it is said to be selfless. Nirvana is not an impermanent phenomena and yet it utterly lacks any inherent existence. This is how it is said to be selfless.

Thus, the correct understanding of the selflessness of Nirvana cannot be arrived at without understanding the subtler meanings of selflessness. Understanding selflessness through things not existing permanently, unitarily and independently is the coarsest understanding and this is not sufficient for understanding the selflessness of Nirvana.

Now, does that mean being selfless is a completely sufficient description of nirvana? No. More needs to be said. Nevertheless, nirvana is indeed selfless.

Moreover, understanding the selflessness of all things is essential to gaining our liberation from cyclic existence. Directly realizing the emptiness of all existent and non-existent things and regarding all this as a morass of utterly unreal concepts and appearances is how we arrive at the doorstep of nirvana. I hope this helps.

Finally, I'll note that nirvana comes in two types: with residuals and without. According to my tradition Nirvana without residuals is only attained by fully enlightened Buddhas or Arya beings while in meditative equipoise directly perceiving emptiness.