Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm


 * 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 Restart Restarting the debate due to trainwreck. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dwm

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Possibly non-notable window manager. No references to independent, third-party sources despite calls for them since November 2009. I can't find anything myself via Google, though perhaps someone with better Google-fu can turn something up. If not, the article clearly fails Notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Good luck finding anything about this one now that Microsoft has usurped the name. Pcap  ping  18:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is well-known windows manager, his tiling feature forked into many other WM. Usurpation of his name by M$ is not a problem: here is right query with 200,000 results: It is an opensource IT project so using strong criteria of notability we should keep in mind that authors has not any profit. They work for Idea, just like wiki. So there is no risk of commercial motivation, the thing that strong criterion of notability fights with. Wikipedia always was together with opensource — such a victorious union, based on common ideas.Gkrellm (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Of those 200&thinsp;000 Google results, which ones are reliable sources which establish dwm's notability? I see a lot of blogs, forum posts, software catalogues, and user wikis, but so far nothing which meets Wikipedia's criteria. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the situation in IT now? Open source projects lives mainly in virtual world. They does not have money to be printable in paper articles. So google statistic and its success in linux community are only way to estimate notability, and in case of dwm they are enough to keep this article. Gkrellm (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep (repeated recommendation). dwm is an open-source successful project, and like many other IT-themes, his noble is capable to spread over only IT infrastructure like forums, mail-lists, youtube, and obviously has much less print sources than scars on Pamela Anderson's tits, popular in yellow press. But it is not commercial initiative, it is an enthusiastic work, based on the same principles that Wiki based on. So more than 215,000 results in google are enough to keep article. See also his popularity in Russian Linux community Linux.org.ru: Gkrellm (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For free an opensurce projects, based on clean enthusiasm, google statistic and its success in linux community are only way to estimate notability. If you don't understand this you have a lot of things to learn before deleting articles about opensource projects. Gkrellm (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is cool open-source window manager, and people love it! So, many people from Russia use dwm in work, so, you can watch screenshots, where people brag of their dwm. For example: http://www.linux.org.ru/gallery/screenshots/3656753, http://www.linux.org.ru/gallery/screenshots/4064521. DoctorSinus (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — DoctorSinus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for keeping an article. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not about ILIKEIT it is about "Linux community likes it". Just go to presented link and go be fat somewhere else. Gkrellm (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you can't find anything about dwm via google, may be it is better for wikipedia to fire you rather than delete this article? 109.169.200.30 (talk) — 109.169.200.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Awesome, Rat, Ion, wmii and dwm are very important window managers. This software implements a revolutionary methods of human-computer interaction. Each of these window managers has unique properties and are worth of articles in the wiki. Stop the Psychonaut, vandal, who marks all the articles about tile managers to delete! Ingwar-k (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC) — Ingwar-k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If the dwm has such revolutionary HCI, surely you could point to some HCI journals which discuss it?  Also, please remember to assume good faith. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hard to assume good faith, looking at your stupid troll bravadoes in your page. I will trend to stop troll OpenSource community. Free OpenSource projects has not obey to rules that were made against commercial promotions in Wiki. Wiki is totally based on free and open software. If you not understand this so please be so kind to keep far from free opensource programmers articles. Gkrellm (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ion, dwm and some others is a typical, classic tiling window managers. No way for removing. Gleb-ax>_> —Preceding undated comment added 23:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC).  — Gleb-ax (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As i see, you cannot understand what is "tiling window manager" and you dont know history of interfaces evolution. At first, you must to read Tiling window manager after that, you can google "dwm". I think you must be suprised what first 2 pages refers to DWN as window manager. Now you see how many people care about dwn? Now you can repeat this algorithm with awesome, musca, ion etc. If you cant find, i can put all links in one file and sent it to one of text hosting sites to show you proofs. Or you think what "if nobody writes article in Forbes about thingname - thingname haven't got a "significant coverage""? In this case i must to say: you wrong. Also, sorry for my bad english. iorlas (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. For a vote. iorlas (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. In order to satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for standalone articles, the subject needs to receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources have failed should be removed in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Zero sources = no article. It's that simple. — Rankiri (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And please say what does Wikipedia do with people like you that doesn't read the arguments and ignores proofs and links? Notability of free software obviously has no support in glossy paper, it is the subject of sysadmin blogs and threads in Linux communities all over the world only. If you don't understand this fact you should logout right now and go teach yourself. Gkrellm (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is Open Source software. It's free as in "freedom" and is also free as in "beer". You will never ever get as much coverage in glossy prints "reliable secondary sources" as for prorietary software or software sponsored by big companies. It's a good page, written in a good style, and you can hardly say it's marketing or whatever. Leave it alone, please. Wikipedia has greater places where you can show off your ardour. 0xd34df00d (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have started a discussion whether Linux.org.ru qualifies as a WP:RS at RS/N. Pcap ping  06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The problem is that some folks trying to destruct things they do not know to be popular. But popularity is not the thing needed for the subject of article. This article is about the window manager, which is free software and maybe it is very specific thing, but it real useful for people that use free software and even for those who interested in. Reliable sources is http://dwm.suckless.org and it is more than enaugh Jeuta (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Jeuta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not independent of dwm (obviously) as required by WP:GNG. Pcap  ping  13:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Often, free software becomes very popular (ergo, becomes notable) before being printed in serious papers. Remember it! Gleb-ax>_> 13:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, add it to Wikipedia when it becomes notable.
 * Please be so kind to read all sources presented here, then prove that they are not notable, and then insert comments like previous. Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. Please read Notability of free open source software. Mclaudt (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it doesn't work like that. The burden of proof is upon you to prove notability (as defined by WP:N), not on the "delete" !voters to prove non-notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But it is on you to read the proof you get presented. So please do that. hint: “freeX”. Draketo (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've searched the usual Linux sites accepted as WP:RS here, but besides a brief mention in, I couldn't find anything else. Pcap ping  13:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable window manager because it led to the creation of many others, including awesome. Not all window managers are non-notable. 128.208.86.241 (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — 128.208.86.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. The article about DWM window manager is availabe in 10 different languages in wikipedia. Isn't that enough? DWM is an opensource project so you won't find any ads in popular journals/etc. 77.35.27.153 (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.35.27.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Meatpuppetry Notice. From http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222 (translation): Article about dwm in wikipedia set for removal . . . Proposed Strategy for Action: After registration MUST write at least a couple of lines on his personal profile. To do this, click on the name of its Nick at upper right. It is necessary that nickname in the discussion are not highlighted in red, a sign of very fresh registrant. This adds weight to arguments.
 * If you're a linux.org.ru user about to "add weight to the argument" using the above suggestion, please note that what you're about to do is considered highly inappropriate. More importantly, you should know that this issue will not be settled by a simple majority vote. If no reliable sources for this software are found, it really doesn't matter If the color of your nickname is red or blue. See WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment about color. But please tell me what does your link have common with meatpuppetry? Please read the translation carefully, see quote: "We must earnestly and energetically present arguments in favor of the weight of the article and the popularity of dwm. Carefully appends at the bottom of the comment." Please keep in mind that people here write their own opinions and they are not joint by family or subordination relationships. So I insist that you delete Meatpuppetry Notice or present due arguments. I wait for response. Mclaudt (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you didn't present any proof of Meatpuppetry so I insist that you delete this notice. This is wide resonance (cause deleting a dwm suggests the incompetence of editors) and this is not Meatpuppetry cause each new editor presents his own proofs and links, as noticed and cited above. Mclaudt (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, see WP:MEAT. Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. When you, the author that comment, asked people to vote keep in order to "put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts, and to defend this strategically important area.", you violated that policy. — Rankiri (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. So you should be glad of increasing of specialists in that theme. Please read Notability of free open source software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaudt (talk • contribs) 05:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This window manager is part of well known GNU/Linux distibutions (Gentoo, Debian, AltLinux, Ubuntu and others. there is several articles about DWM in 3rd party sources, it is listed in Free Software Directory maintained by FSF and so on. I added several links to article. I wonder, how can you even consider deletion of so notable software. Necrosporus (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Necrosporus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The Free Software Directory listing is not a reliable secondary source indicative of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? FSF.org is site of most well known free software advocate, they maintain a list of all notable free sofware (it's usually outdate, but it doesn't make sense in this case). Also consider other links I added to article, there is several 3rd party reviews. --Necrosporus (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the FSF directory does not use Wikipedia's notability criteria for deciding which software to list. Where did you get the idea that they did? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument holds for every newspaper deciding on which article to write, too. The FSF is a clear authority in free software - maybe the authority, along with the Linux foundation. Yet here you are right in that we can't conclude notibility from it, since this is simply a list of programs. But we don't need to find something which fullfills the notibility criterium, since that's already fullfilled by the freeX article. Draketo (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an all-inclusive directory that doesn't offer any analysis for the listed software. If you compare the text of the entry with the text on the official website, http://dwm.suckless.org/, you'll see that they are nearly identical. They probably were identical at the time the entry was made. — Rankiri (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, definitely. This window manager is included in major Linux distributions. There are how-tos in official wikis about installing, configuring and using: at Gentoo wiki and at Arch, just to name a few. For any Linux user it's obvious that these two facts are enough to prove notability of any software package. People won't spend a lot of time to write install guides for unnotable software, you know. 0xd34df00d (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — 0xd34df00d (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Neutral. I'm the inventor of dwm and was pointed to this discussion. I never contributed to Wikipedia so far or to this article, it has been done by the community. In my opinion dwm is quite a significant open source window manager that influenced many other projects, just to list a few: awesome (it was initially a dwm fork), i3, xmonad, dvtm. If I search for "dwm" in Google it is the first hit, you'll get more results from different sources when searching for "dwm window manager" or "dynamic window manager". If you search for "dynamic window manager blog" you'll find various second sources and blog posts about dwm. There has also been German print media coverage of dwm, particularly both, the freeX 06/2007 freeX and the German Linux Magazin Linux User Magazin had an article in autumn 2007 about dwm and another article in 12/2008 about awesome that also referred to dwm . dwm's popularity (despite your impression) is mainly based on its simplicity and potentially because it is one of the simplest and cleanest X window manager implementations that exist. Furthermore I'd like to point out that dwm is open source and one of the suckless.org open source projects, others are wmi, wmii, dmenu, libixp, st, stali, sic, slock, etc. - despite your impression the community is quite large and consists mainly of experienced Unix/Linux users. dwm is also very popular in the Gentoo and Arch Linux community and has active contributors there (like in the Gentoo and Arch Wikis). Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Anselmgarbe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thanks for the freeX article find. It's in a rather obscure magazine from a small publisher, but appears to pass WP:RS. The LinuxUser article however has only a passing mention about DWM in an article about Awesome (window manager); although it does say Awesome is based on code from DWM, I don't see where it says anything about DWM's popularity. Pcap  ping  08:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To remember this: “the freeX article … appears to pass WP:RS”. If noone disagrees to that, we can stop this discussion right now and mark dwm as notable. Draketo (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was mistaken about the LinuxUser Magazin article, it actually covered dwm's predecessor wmii in 1/2006 Wimp ist tot. I'll try to dig through more links to (print) media articles about dwm. Anselmgarbe (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another remark: afaik the term "dynamic window management" which can be found in many general discussions about window management has been introduced by dwm. You won't find "dynamic window management" prior to dwm, which is one of its achievements Anselmgarbe (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Draketo said, "appears to pass WP:RS". If so, end this discussion and focus on finding additional sources (which are likely to improve in time anyway). --Chriswaterguy talk 23:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While it is true that the article fails a literal reading of the notability criteria, for a program that is only 2000 SLOC, it has inspired a number of other window managers - as the current article points out. While there hasn't been any mainstream media coverage, surely in the software world the amount of code directly derived from (forked) or inspired by the original program is as significant a currency of notability as column inches in technical journals or other independent publications? And as the program's author points out, there is a large and active userbase in the free software community that supports this project. Jasonwryan (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Jasonwryan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nope—notability is not determined by popularity, nor is it inherited. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who tells you that? Everybody who pretends to judge the notability must know that in opensource world popularity equals notability, cause the only criterion is quality of software, not money invest in corrupt glossy paper. May be you prefer read contract articles from publishings feeding from Microsoft? Рopularity of dwm is already proven here many times. Mclaudt (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Puhleeze, there are plenty of Linux publications these days, never mind books. Pcap ping  09:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I read it, the comment wasn't about notability, but about the impact of dwm. Draketo (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep According to debian statistics dwm is installed on about 1% of the GNU/Linux systems which run debian - in Gentoo Linux and Arch the percentage should be far higher. Draketo (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with anything and how is this a reason to keep? — Rankiri (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a reason to keep it, because it shows its impact. dwm is used (as basis for work) by more people than many games which are in WP (and these are used only as part time activity). Also it's a very useful fallback for people who are rebuilding their system; for example I currently write this in firefox running on dwm, because my KDE didn't yet finish building. Debian statistics are about the closest you get to all time charts in free software. Draketo (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you use a GNU/Linux system? If yes: Where do you get your trustworthy information? If no: How can you judge what is a source for GNU/Linux users? I don't read any magazines on GNU/Linux, so if you only take print sources, all my information on free software is not noteworthy.Draketo (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not the first person who see the incompetence of some editors and problems in WP:N concerning FOSS. Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. I think that activists for deletion should use their free time and efforts reading Notability of free open source software instead of destroying articles about such a popular=notable enthusiastic project. Mclaudt (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read that, and I think it misses an important point: In free software projects, most people will rather go to that project and add information there than write something in a magazine. So they don't create independent sources, because these would be less useful. And then they'll just give their friends a link and ask them to review it. Which incidentally is just the way how the wikipedia works. Wikipedia introduced the way of working to the larger public, and now the notability criteria punish those who follow that lead. Draketo (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read some other comments again, and from the answers these got it looks like any free software article which isn't among the top 100 programs will disappear. Please compare this to articles on quantum vortices, which are very interesting for me, but are quite uninteresting for the world at large. If this trend continues, wp will be useless for me in a few years, and with that it throws away it's main strength: user contribution. So please ask yourself: Does the notability criterium really say “this must go, no matter how much influence it had on the field”? Every program which got written in response to dwm is effectively a nontrivial and independent coverage. A program is text, much text, and that text is being served to damn many people; a free software programmer reaches more people than most newspapers. If you don't believe that, please go, learn programming and then read the sourcecode. Or would you reject an independent source, just because you don't understand the language? Draketo (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the policy really says that "this must go, no matter how much influence it had in the field if there is no evidence from independent, third-party reliable sources for such influence." —Psychonaut (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The freeX article was deemed WP:RS. If you disagree, then say it there. Otherwise, please stop threatening the work of others with deletion. Draketo (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going to put a vote here, since I think I said my piece in the awesome AfD. I still do not agree with the essays that Psychonaut has linked (and, in fact, am rather unhappy with the proliferation of WP essay links and their being taken as gospel, but that's neither here nor there). I think that they tend to emphasize a verifiability criteria that biases against inclusion of OSS projects among other things, which might be a reaction to the fact that there are so many of those articles right now. Anyhow, to actually make a point in this comment. All of the window manager articles that were nominated for deletion are related, and should almost certainly be considered together somehow. Also, if they all do end up getting deleted (which seems likely, since a very stringent notability criterion is in vogue with editors these last couple of years), it would be super if we could merge their useful content into the Tiling window managers article between the deletion being decided on and the article content actually going away. &mdash;Roguelazer (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is a fair comment, though in the case of dwm the reduction to "tiled WM" would lack its real contribution which is dynamic window management. Apparently wikipedia already has a page about it: Dynamic Window Manager, some background can also be found here . Anselmgarbe (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I sympathize with many of the "keep" comments, but the fact is that Wikipedia's criteria have nothing to do with inherent value or significance, and everything to do with a certain measure of notability, i.e. being mentioned in a publication. This is both good and bad. On the negative side, something that lends itself to a sensationalist or celeb-oriented bit of news has a better chance of getting a Wikipedia article about it than a brilliant project that is going to change the world. On the positive side, this has been a yardstick which has allowed Wikipedia to keep cranks from creating articles about all their pet theories that 3 people in the world believe in. Btw the the inventor of dwm, Anselmgarbe, has exactly the right approach in his comments - looking for acceptable references. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: dwm is a revolutionary and new generation window manager; it implements concepts like binary tags, dynamic X clients placing and handling and it's for sure the best wm for experts we'll ever see. Since it's also the best choice for study and research about X11 programming and best programming practice it must be documented here as an important piece of the todays software. Clamiax (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Clamiax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If it as important as you say, it would have been noted in WP:SECONDARY sources already. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research on awesome window managers that were not noted elsewhere. Pcap ping  11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I collected several references to secondary blogs and online media articles about dwm, here we go:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , -- some where quite significant, for example the dobbs code talk post. Anselmgarbe (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most if not all of those are not acceptable because they are self-published sources. Exceptions are made if the author of the blog/video has previously published works in WP:RS in the same area; see WP:SPS. Figuring out who is behind some blog can be a fair bit of work. Pcap ping  12:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * These are not good sources. Self-published sources like personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, tweets, and so on are generally not acceptable as reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. Please read Notability of free open source software. Mclaudt (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I cite for you WP:SPIP "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Cited sources completely fulfill this note. Mclaudt (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I noticed that one of the reasons the Xmonad page hasn't been deleted is because of osnews mentions, well here are a bunch of osnews entries of dwm: dwm 4.5 release, dwm 4.7 released, dwm 4.9 released, -- also Xmonad is clearly a clone of dwm that appeared after dwm itself and was highly inspired by dwm. If you delete dwm but keep Xmonad then something is seriously odd here... Anselmgarbe (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OSNews is not a great source because it publishes user-contributed articles (with some oversight). But those links you provided are not even articles of that kind (e.g. this is how an article there looks like). Brief announcements of new version releases do not constitute in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. Pcap ping  12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I understand this and try to get the picture about what you are after. I really try to help here, but I wonder then what's the justification in not deleting Xmonad if the OSNews links are not considered sufficient? Or in other words what information lacks the dwm wikipedia entry that Xmonad has? If I have an answer to this I can estimate if it's worth the effort to dig through all the sources to make the WP:SPS more valid or if deleting this page and rescuing some content over for Tiling window manager and/or Dynamic window manager might be the right approach (but if so I'd say then also delete Xmonad, ion, etc). Please let me know, I really prefer to spend my time on development. Anselmgarbe (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the most obvious thing is that Xmonad is the subject of a peer-reviewed ACM paper. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm not aware of any dwm paper, I know people gave talks about dwm (including myself) here and there, but these things never went through some peer review I'm afraid. So whatever that means to you, wether you accept the sources that exist or not. Saying that dwm is some attic hobby project with no user base clearly misses the point (there are more dwm users than some other window managers that aren't considered to be deleted in wikipedia). If that isn't enough, I can't help, sorry and I can spend my time on creativity instead and continue with the development. If you delete this article I'm sure someone will create it again some day though -- it has been around here for years, it's a bit of a surprise you got the idea to delete it now... but do whatever you like. Anselmgarbe (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anselmgarbe (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most non-academic software is not peer-reviewed either, and as I explained below, that's not really a deciding factor unless its paper(s) are highly cited, because they are usually written by the software authors so not independent. For the coverage usually found for production software, look at Ion (window manager). Pcap ping  14:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I read through this further info of Ion, to be honest it's nothing special, so an equally credible external source for dwm would be dwm tutorial for Arch, dwm tutrorial for Ubuntu, or linuxgoodies tutorial. We encouraged people to contribute to the suckless.org wiki (the whole dwm website is a wiki) to contribute their stuff there, hence lot's of external documentation is actually hosted in a sense of WP:SPS and we can't really change this. Anselmgarbe (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping this article. If you feel that another article on a similar topic does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, then you should nominate it for deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. I provided links to external sources for "further reading" that aren't under my or the suckless.org control and have a similar quality as the "Further reading" links in the Ion wikipedia article, which seem to justify the inclusion of Ion in wikipedia. I'm not saying that because the Ion page exists, that the dwm page should not be deleted. All I'm trying to do is understanding what information you require to delete or not delete. And things aren't really clear to me, because first I thought we'd require some scientific article about dwm that has been peer reviewed, then this was leveraged using the link to Ion as an example, and I'm trying to point out that similar sources exist for dwm -- without requiring the deletion or inclusion. Anselmgarbe (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you take a look at my earlier post about source reliability? is an open wiki,  is a forum thread, and  appears to be a non-notable personal blog. — Rankiri (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I cite for you WP:SPIP "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Cited sources completely fulfill this note. Mclaudt (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I understand, though this means that notability for a popular open source project like dwm requires commercial online media coverage which is not an easy undertaking for a non-commercial open source project. I hence agree with Thayerw's comment below. I'd recommend to rethink the WPs notability rules for open source project. Articles in commercial online media are no proof of any significance of the project, in the given Ion case those articles are +5 years old and back then it was a quite exotic appearance in IBM developerworks. I'd say that the notability is proven a lot more if projects are spread throughout various blogs, forums, wikis and appear to be generally active and have got a community like in the dwm case, than relying on very old coverage in commercial online media. Just my final 2 cts to this. Anselmgarbe (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Anselmgarbe, you are not the first person who see the incompetence of some editors and problems in WP:N concerning FOSS. Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. I think that activists for deletion should use their free time and efforts reading Notability of free open source software instead of destroying articles about such a popular=notable enthusiastic project. Mclaudt (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not take part in that 2007 AfD discussion, but looking at the XMonad article now, I'd probably !vote  "weak delete". Its meager  workshop paper is a WP:PRIMARY source, and is really peanuts in   academic terms&mdash;doesn't have  much in the way of citations  (9)  to establish it as an important academic result (compare with the  AfD  for Fabrik (software)). XMonad has a little  secondary  coverage from one well-known Haskell guy, Simon Peyton  Jones, but that's  about it, unless you  count more blog coverage from Don Stewart, which  is both the software's  author and a co-author of an O'Reilly Haskell book.  Haskell is a pretty  small world, so that coverage is pretty marginal in  terms of  independence as well. Also, Wikipedia is not consistent; a  lot depends  on who shows up at the AfD. :-) Pcap  ping  13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Sorry, maybe I misunderstood something, but why each and every article about free and open source tiling window manager gets deleted? Is it a war? -- Bełamp (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a majority vote. Please provide valid reasons for keeping the article. — Rankiri (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have misunderstood something. Not every article about a free tiling window manager is being deleted.  This page is for discussing whether one specific article, dwm, is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.  —Psychonaut (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral.In my opinion more than enough evidence has been submitted to support the claim of influence the suckless community, and particularly dwm, has had on window manager development. However, I understand that this is not a majority vote and my opinion means little.  It is unfortunate that Wikipedia's notability policy has no special guidelines for open source software (OSS).  There is an undeniable truth that most OSS will never reach a level of commercial or academic publication to meet Wikipedia's current requirements, due in part to the very nature of the OSS philosophy.  At the very least I hope that dwm and other OSS window managers are adequately summarized elsewhere within WP. Perhaps a new discussion should take place regarding special consideration for free (and widely used) software which may not otherwise receive significant attention to warrant inclusion at Wikipedia. --Thayerw (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Thayerw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. I've looked at all the blog sources given above. For most the author could not even be identified. This piece, written by Jack Woehr qualifies per WP:SPS because he is a contributing editor to Dr. Dobb's, e.g., but the blog entry in itself is just a rant that hardly says anything about dwm besides "Anselm R. Garbe &al's dwm is pretty close to the ultimate." In his blog, Woehr also has an interview with dwm's author, Mr. Garbe, but they talk about wmii and its predecessor, wmi, but not about dwm. Duh. Pcap  ping  18:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There is an article about DWM there: http://www.linuxformat.ru/anons86.phtml (just search for DWM or Window Manager). Does acticle about DWM in paper magazine provide enough 'notability'? 77.35.27.153 (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.35.27.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Possibly, yes. It depends on whether the magazine is considered a reliable source, and the extent of coverage in the article.  Passing mentions or very short reviews probably wouldn't count; a full-length article entirely about the subject probably would.  I'm not familiar with Linux Format but maybe someone else who is could indicate whether (and if so, how) it meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's included in the DVD that accompanied LXF86, but not covered in the actual magazine. Shovelware doesn't count for notability. Pcap ping  10:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Remark So what's your take on the issues raised in Notability of free open source software and referred to above by Mclaudt. Is this all irrelevant in your opinion or should you simply wait with further deletions of open source software wikipedia entries until perhaps a broader consensus has been found? Or do you think it'll be best to remove this article and particularly others and have a Tiled Window Manager or Dynamic Window Manager article instead? Anselmgarbe (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to that they actively clean this rising question. I think that question requires other wikipedians than three deleting "activists". Mclaudt (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that page is irrelevant to this discussion. It's not policy; it's a request for comments on the policy.  —Psychonaut (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a printed book, where dwm is described: "The official Damn Small Linux book: the tiny adaptable Linux that runs on Anything" You are able to get proof follow link  Grasagrautur (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)  — Grasagrautur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Takk fyrir. But how long is the description?  A sentence?  A paragraph?  A chapter?  Unless there is substantial treatment, the book does not count as a reliable source establishing notability for dwm. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How many letters in the book you need? Formal criteria of reliability is observed, but if you talk about good sense, there is a lot of links above.Grasagrautur (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Google Books and Amazon, the book doesn't even mention the subject. — Rankiri (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you read the book? Grasagrautur (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm capable to find only Fluxbox and JWM window managers. Keep in mind that previous links are not only mention of these window managers in this book. Each has its own paragraph, and it is strange that google book search shows such a few pages. I have my own copy of this book. So google book search shows much less quantity of results than really exists. I added your links to Fluxbox and JWM page. Mclaudt (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Information about features, history and availability of tiling window managers is important for making decisions which one to use. This kind of information is typically looked up in wikipedia. --HV (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm sorry but I don't feel that the article in FreeX can be seen as a sole authoritative source indicative of the subject's notability. For one, I generally disagree that a single inaccessible source can satisfy WP:N. Secondly, and more importantly, the article was written by Tobias Walkowiak, who's been very active on on the software's website and who is also listed as one of the "people are/were involved mainly in wmii and dwm development as developers and contributors". — Rankiri (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Article in FreeX is reliable source. It is paper magazine and it is written by specialists in that field. It satisfies WP:N. Your notice about Tobias Walkowiak is very strange. Who do you think should write articles about software? It is normal when author writes about his project in some magazine. It means that this software is notable. Sorry but your arguments suggests your full incompetence in that field. Mclaudt (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be normal for an author to write about his project in some magazine, but it also disqualifies that article as a reliable source. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mclaudt, people here keep referring you to our policies, such as WP:N and WP:RS, yet your responses, such as the one above, consistently indicate that you haven't read them. It seems you've learned the words, but not their meanings.  For example, a "reliable source" doesn't mean that the source is an expert; it means (in part) that the source is independent of the subject.  Please actually read the policies before posting any further arguments. It will save everyone a lot of time. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is not self-published, so according to WP:N and WP:RS, it is RS. Please be so kind to present correct paragraph that makes this article not RS. If someone of deletionists would be specialist in IT-field, that fact could save much more time. Mclaudt (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, it seems you didn't bother to read WP:N and WP:RS. If you had, you would know that not being self-published is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion.  Also, the paragraph you are asking about is in a big conspicuous box at the very top of the WP:N page, helpfully labelled as being a summary of the whole policy: "A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine)  The only possible way you could have missed it is if you didn't bother opening the page to begin with.  Finally, whether or not any given editor is an expert in IT (and as an aside, it's rather presumptuous of you to think that none of the editors here are) has absolutely no bearing on their ability to interpret and apply Wikipedia policy. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The chief-editor of magazine remains independent from dwm. And cause the selection of theme is always the decision of editor, that fact that author is one of developers is irrelevant to independence of editor. So source is magazine, and this magazine as a source is totally independent, and the fact that entire article is about dwm increases notability. So according to WP:RS, it is RS. Mclaudt (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPIP and WP:V. And again, even if this was an entirely independent, fully accessible article from an unambiguously reputable and trustworthy source, it would still be the bare minimum that would almost definitely have some difficulty establishing notability in most AfD discussions. This one, however, is an inaccessible article from an obscure German publication of no demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, written by a single author who has a clear personal connection to its subject. There is just no way it can considered a reliable secondary source independent of the subject serving to demonstrate the notability of the subject in an exclusive manner. — Rankiri (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Note: Relisted as the discussion is a complete mess with all the SPA accounts, etc. Substracting all of them, there is not enough of a strong consensus right now. JForget 00:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment SPA or non-SPA doesn't matter, as consensus have to be reached not by voting, but via discussion. Necrosporus (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete First of all I naturally distrust articles that attract meatpuppetry and canvassing, to me this reeks of using Wikipedia as a means of promotion. Second, I fail to see what makes this a notable program, per our definition.  Them  From  Space  00:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all I cannot find anything about canvassing active discussions and resonance in Wikipedia's deletion policy so this is only your own opinion, as you just noticed. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a cause for deletion. Second, follow presented links. And obviously AGF. Mclaudt (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nice links at the end of page you linked. There is many people who believe this software is notable regardless of existence or nonexistence sources you consider reliable. This is not meatpuppety because people who come here from reading such pages mostly don't just follow instructions, but really would like to help Wikipedia get rid from obsolete rules which conflict with project goal. There is many people who actually use such desktop managers and most of them are high quality IT specialists. And can you call it promotion? Community just believe article about dynamic window manager should be here, they don't try to make such article NPOV. Also there _is_ third party sources anyway, just consider following links I added to the end of article. And please read Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy — if existing rules fails to prove notability of such article, rules should be changed, nor article deleted. Necrosporus (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - First of all, if this is going to be kept, it should be renamed, Desktop Window Manager is much more notable. We have here the problem of establishing the notability of an open source software, something which is rather difficult. I'd like to have informations on the number of persons who downloaded it, the number of developpers etc. We need a special guidelines on GNUs etc. What are the similar window managers which have simlar popularity, maybe they can all be merged in one article. -RobertMel (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you prove your sentence "Desktop Window Manager is much more notable"? I'd said opposite: if you search for DWM in google or even Microsoft bing, you would get dynamic window manager in the first place — even Microsoft consider dwm more notable than their Desktop Window Manager, as bing is their search engine. Search engine criteria is much like Wikipedia Notability policy, but is more formalized and automated. Necrosporus (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you are kidding, the desktop graphical user interface system on Vista and 7 which enable Aero, less notable than Dwm? I am very sympatic to Dwm, and I agree that establishing notability of GNU softwares is more problematic. I have a proposition of merging similarly popular window managers. What do you say? -RobertMel (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 *  Keep (repeated recommendation) — If major GNU/Linux sites care about window managers you try to delete (i.e. Article about Awesome was deleted from Wikipedia is one of top 10 discussed news of last month), it's enough to prove its notability within the Community. And there is really many secondary sources too, just use google and examine interwikies. Anyway, in matter of Verifiability, the source code of software is most reliable source that can exist, so in this case, blogs should be counted as proofs of notability even if you doesn't consider is reliable in matter of verifiability. Necrosporus (talk) 06:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC) — Necrosporus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Ballot stuffing warning — please be aware that some users (specifically, User:Gkrellm and User:Necrosporus) have !voted here multiple times. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Misinformation warning please be aware that previous post from User:Psychonaut is totally incorrect. All new bold verdicts are under "Relisted" line and they are not counted one more time. This user is that who proposed me change name after my votes so I revoted after rename but my voice was accepted only once. You could also find a lot of fun facts on his user page . Mclaudt (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article in FreeX is reliable source. It is paper magazine and it is written by specialists in that field. It satisfies WP:N. So there is a lot of other links, see before. I repeat that the problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. I think that activists for deletion should use their free time and efforts reading Notability of free open source software instead of destroying articles about such a popular=notable enthusiastic project. Mclaudt (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC) — Mclaudt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's now three times you've !voted in this discussion: !vote 1 !vote 2 !vote 3. Two of those were before the relisting which, incidentally, is not an invitation for you to repost your !vote.  User:Necrosporus has !voted here twice: !vote 1 !vote 2 Also, that your former username violated Wikipedia's username policies has nothing to do with this discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Despite all of the keeps, notability has not been shown. Joe Chill (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please remember that WP:IMNOTCAPABLETOCLICKLINKS is not an argument for deletion. Article in paper magazine FreeX is reliable source. Also keep in mind that many specialists suggest that, as discussed above, FOSS needs his own guideline for criterion of notability (as it is already [] with other fields ), so, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , are quite enough to prove popularity(=notability for FOSS) in trend of rethinking. Also AGF. Mclaudt (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree we have a problem here and a guideline would come handy. -RobertMel (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those links show notability and all of them except for the first one is unreliable. A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video is not reliable! Joe Chill (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.