Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination)


 * 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   No consensus. My full analysis is at User:Flyguy649/Dwm. -- Flyguy649 talk 17:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dwm
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Previous AfD was a trainwreck due to offsite activism. Original rationale follows:
 * 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)

I concur with this rationale and have restarted the debate to get a clean sheet after the agitation of a now-blocked user who also engaged in substantial off-wiki solicitation. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note This AfD was closed as Speedy no consensus for ~4 hours. I am reversing the closure to allow continued discussion. This AfD now closes at 22:45 UTC on March 7, 2010. I will determine consensus then. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note) This AfD is being canvassed for via email. See WP:AN/I. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 07:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As I said on the previous discussion, there is simply no evidence that the subject has received significant coverage by reliable secondary sources necessary to satisfy the requirements of WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video doesn't make this article pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pile-On Delete per lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat •

" A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video doesn't make this article pass". Uh, the consideration in question, is whether there are reliable third party sources, these are ample see above. There is no reason whatever to discount blog posts by the way: they must be actually *read* to be discounted as either unreliable or not-third-party. There is no reason to think that a blog post is more unreliable than a New York Times article, the proof must come from internal evidence. A brief study will show that blog posts about dwm almost uniformly exhibit prodigious competence; one might have guessed this a priori, from the nature of dwm. Chief Sequoya

(Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my original arguments. Many sources were presented at the previous deletion discussion, and were meticulously scrutinized by established editors.  None of them met Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean, we should also delete the article on the ASIC_programming_language, given that it completely lacks references and is only a stub? That's one of your contributions, and it is far below the influence of dwm - and far below the quality of the dwm article. If you want to be consistent, please clean up in your own garden first and remove all articles you wrote which fail in fullfilling WP:N. Draketo (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ATTP and WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Rankiri (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that, and I refrained from using that argument for a very long time. But seeing someone zealously calling for deletion of an article someone else wrote (Psychonaut started the first deletion discussion) but not applying the same logic to those of his own works which are below the bar he uses for others gets me after some time. I didn't put a deletion mark on his article, but asked him to rethink his own logic. But yes, I grew angry, so I'll stop discussing in here for a while. You know my arguments and I know yours, and we won't see much additional useful discussion. Just remember that you are destroying the reputation of wikipedia among many of those people who made it possible (free software programmers).
 * Free software programmers don't need magazines to reach people, so they don't send copies of their programs around. They know that he main information channels for free software users are online media anyway. So asking “are you in a dead-tree-magazine” has zero value. Rather ask “what do people in the Gentoo forums discuss about?” But I'm presenting arguments again… Now I stop that till I'm relaxed again (and then some). Bye. Draketo (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Draketo, the article on ASIC was written long before the policies on notability and reliable sources were formulated. I'd forgotten I'd even written it until I found Soxred93's Tools a few days ago and added their output to my user page.  So there's no question of a double standard here.  If you feel any of the articles I've started or contributed to fail to meet Wikipedia's policies in their present forms, then feel free to edit them, put the appropriate cleanup tags on them, or even nominate them for deletion.  As long as you do so in good faith and in accordance with policy (and specifically, not running afoul of WP:POINT), I won't take it personally.  Note that any further discussion on such articles, though, should go on their respective talk pages, and not in this deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't name them as “for deletion”, since I disagree with the notion of overboarding deletion by people who don't know enough of the topic. I don't know legacy programming languages, so I don't think I should be a judge on it's notability, as you shouldn't be a judge on the notability of free wm's. Additionally I think that notability is being misused for deleting perfectly notable pages. And I don't see deleting pages which are useful for users as in any way legitimate (since serverspace and bandwidth are growing ever cheaper). Draketo (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And threatening me with blocking on my talk page won't change my view. Draketo (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event. Blueboy96 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So we should remove articles because they are on a topic many people care about very much? If that alone would be a reason, we should go right away and delete the articles on christianity and the united states. Since that is clearly ridiculous, so is using the same argument for deleting the dwm article. Draketo (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue. Blueboy96 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I take a lot of issue with this view. The article hasn't been particularly changed, and I see no changes that violate policy. In fact, the sum of all of the changes since the AfD contains nothing but the addition of AfD notices and a few citation links. Yes, some of those links need to go. But suggesting that a few users acting against policy (probably unknowingly, but whatever) is cause for deletion is not a defensible position. &mdash;Roguelazer (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it should affect the article, how it looks in your mind. The only thing which matters is the article itself. Draketo (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I think your interpretation of "significant" is a bit excessive. There was, in fact, an (apparently) reliable source presented in the last AfD, although I don't read German, so I can't really verify that. I also stand by my earlier point that if the decision is made to delete this article (and the other half-dozen articles that were listed), there should be an opportunity to, as a community, merge the relevant and sourced content into the Tiling window manager and Dynamic window manager articles. Also, I am bothered that you would take the actions of a few... over-enthusiastic supporters as evidence to delete, User:Blueboy96. That doesn't seem very impartial; in fact, it almost seems vindictive. I'm also a little bothered by the protection on this page. Not very in-keeping with the spirit of things to exclude people... &mdash;Roguelazer (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep From the previous discussion: “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. And yes, I speak German (being from Germany) and freeX 06/2007 (archive) has a whole article on dwm. No side mention or aggregate, but a whole article on dwm only. And as Psychonaut also speaks german (as noted on his userpage) he can easily doublecheck that. Draketo (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One doesn't need to speak German to see that the freeX article was written by one of dwm's developers. This makes it a primary source, not an independent third-party source.  This was noted by Rankiri in the previous AfD: "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 ' ." —Psychonaut (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know that this is almost always the case in free software? The point is that the article was published by an independent source. And in free software people who are knowledgeable on a project often contribute - just like they do in wikipedia. And in academia, by the way. And your link to “active on the website” points to the mailing list archive. Draketo (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And Tobias Walkowiak is listed under “other people” as “Tobias Walkowiak (provided various feedback)”. This doesn't make him a dwm developer (because if it did, the same criterium would make me a developer of Firefox, Mercurial, GNU Hurd, LimeWire, Python, Gentoo Linux, Freenet and many others, which would be far too much honor; and if I were a developer of all these, I'd be an established independent authority and would tell you that dwm is notable). Draketo (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I also disagree with some things in WP:N (especially the fixation on offline sources which puts free software at a severe disadvantage), but that doesn't change its content, as you clearly stated more than once. Either you change your mind on that (then we can include many sources you discarded and dwm is notable, because the points I disagree with would be null, too) or you stick to it, and dwm is notable because of the freeX article. Draketo (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you buy restaurant food and mail to the developers of Firefox as well? The following message was written by Anselm "garbeam" Garbe, the self-proclaimed founder and developer of a bunch of suckless open source projects, including dwm, stali, wmi and st :


 * I'm glad to announce the wmii-3 release aka 'Zur Steglitzer Bratpfanne . . . The release name 'Zur Steglitzer Bratpfanne' has been choosen because of the following story. Back in April 'garbeam' received a postal package from Tobias 'aka tube' Walkowiak. This package contained a secret treasure - a double-sized Curry Wurst from Western Berlins 'Steglitzer Bratpfanne' restaurant. 'tube' sent this package with express service and the Curry Wurst was still quite enjoyable after warming it up in 'garbeam's oven.
 * For me, the conflict of interest is clear. — Rankiri (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I recently sent the author of p2pnet.net 5 Euros for a morning coffee, does that count (and does that make me a writer on p2pnet)? Donations are the only way you can give something back to developers of great free projects who don't happen to live in the same street as you. And a bratwurst is a great idea!
 * Did the writer of an article about Starcraft(R) pay for the game? OK, chances are he got the game as present so he could review it. Where is “I love this program, here's a Curry Wurst as thank you” a conflict of interest while about every mainstream program review isn't? Rather I see that as showing that Tobias was genuinely exalted by wmii (which by the way isn't dwm).
 * Do you see a conflict of interest, because someone wants to say thank you to the developers, who spend their free time writing programs which enrich his life and give them to the whole world for free? Draketo (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a conflict of interest, then everyone who ever payed for a program should be banned from the list of secondary sources. Sadly that would leave about noone who could write anything substantial about any unfree program. Draketo (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What further evidence can one possibly expect to find through English Google? A revealing sex tape, perhaps? Please, stop. As I said earlier, 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. Here, we're talking about an inaccessible article from an obscure German publication of no demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, written by a single author who has an obvious personal connection to the software and its creators. There is just no way it can seen as significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject necessary to satisfy WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's only because you deny that the reliable information channels of free software users are online, like the dwm article in the Gentoo Wiki. Otherwise you would see the plethora of sources which show the notability of dwm. And you're falsely taking contributing as a personal connection. Draketo (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And because you call the article in the 2006 12 edition of the russian magazine Linux Format shovelware (though the article shows international recognition), which I would disagree with, since it's clearly additional value. This is not “oh, and the DVD has some games”, but a naming of Dwm alongside Gnome and KDE. Sure, it isn't Firefox, but that's the case with KDE, too, and the founder of KDE just got the German „Bundesverdienstkreuz”. DWM is most widely known, because it is recognized as the most minimalistic and elegant window manager. If you ask for a really clean and minimal wm, you get dwm. Draketo (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, the program was merely included on the freeware DVD that came with the magazine. The magazine itself doesn't seem to contain any articles about dwm. — Rankiri (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not an article, that's just a list of the stuff on the DVD. The section is called "Desktop". --AVRS (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm quite disturbed seeing another deletion attempt, after the first obviously failed and Psychonaut completely ignored my previous input. And, please, “offsite activism”… you mean it's now wrong that people who are knowlegeable on a subject come to the wikipedia and contribute, when they see that their contribution might be needed, because people who know little about their field of expertise are acting on unfounded preconceptions? Should we now tell experts of quantum physics that we don't look into their inaccessible papers (locked in scientific journals) but rather say “you know, quantum vortices never appeared in an independent newspaper, so who cares, if they revolutionarize our knowledge about the inner nature of our world?” Draketo (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To all who don't use X11 (and a free software system) but vote anyway, please let me quote from Articles_for_deletion: “consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.“ Draketo (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please also keep in mind that the article has substantial translations into 9 languages (some extending it). Draketo (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but irrelevant; other wikis have different inclusion criteria. If any of those translations have sources we haven't considered yet and which meet the English Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources establishing notability, please post them here so we can consider them. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you read Chinese? If yes, please check the article. If not: welcome to the club :) - I just added one more source from the italian version. Draketo (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no article in Chinese (at least, none which is linked to from the English article). There is a Japanese article, though it cites only primary sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is one more link we already had in the sources: pc world - looks like this was in the 9 2008 release (from the source link at the top) Draketo (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bulgarian magazine article has only three sentences on dwm in a long list of window managers; this probably doesn't count as significant coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What sentences are you talking about? I see five sentences (not including the mention under "awesome"), like in the original. --AVRS (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Translation by Google Translate: dwm is written in C. It resembles Wmii, but is organized differently. There are no tools for setup, the only way to reconfigure something to change the source code and recompile it. This is not as complicated as it seems at first glance, since the source code according to the authors promise will never exceed 2000 lines, and all the configurable options are implemented in the form of macros. According to its authors dwm is suitable for laptops with high resolution display and for widescreen monitors.. — Rankiri (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right—five sentences, not three. My point about significant coverage still stands, though. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per WP:N, and undue canvassing as I said at the last discussion.  Them From  Space  08:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, in case it wasn't obvious - I agree with Psychonaut and the analysis of the sources in the last AfD. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete or smerge to wmii. Only one source that could be construed as reliable covers it in depth. The PC World Bulgaria article has little coverage; that's enough to add it to (say) wmii as a similar WM that's configured by editing the C source instead of using scripting, but not enough for a separate article in my view. Pcap ping  18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've separately nominated dmenu, because it's a component of dwm. Prod was removed as controversial. Pcap ping  19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Pull any sourcing that doesn't meet WP:RS and it doesn't look like any of them are left. Wouldn't pass GNG.  Nefariousski (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N. Nothing more really needed to say.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 20:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Dwm Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Second deletion nomination within a week, with no evidence that anything's changed since the last one. Let it sit for a bit instead of essentially edit-warring over deletion. --Delirium (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Second deletion nomination within a week! I am not impressed. In any event the arguments given have failed to persuade me that this article should be deleted.
 * Keep. Are you crazy? Perhaps you are not interested in X window managers (and I don't blame you), but to those who are, dwm is an important milestone. AlexTingle (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's effectively the same nomination, read the rationale. Funnily enough my colleagues here who use X don't know the product. Maybe that's a side-effect of the observed fact that this "important milestone" lacks reliable non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that we know you do not use X let me remind you of what Draketo has said already: "Articles_for_deletion: “consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.“". Secondly, not knowing about something in an article constitutes no reason that it should not be there. My vote is Keep. --LuckyStarr (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. For all of the better-articulated reasons given above. U (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is sourced and is sufficiently notable. ElBenevolente(talk) 14:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is clear to me that the freeX article should not be considered as written by a dwm developer as per Draketo example on how that would make him a developer int he same sense for Firefox, LimeWire, Python etc. As such it


 * dwn stands on its own merits and is notable. However I would caution others who are in favor of Keeping this article avoid making statements or arguments along the line of "people like us wrote the wikipedia software so you owe us and should therefore keep this in just because" as it doesn't really move the discussion forward.


 * I would also add that this discussion is about the dwn article and not the state of other users articles (as per Draketo highlighting the ASIC_programming_language written by Psychonaut) --nycmstar (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. As I said I kept myself from that for a long time, but at some point frustration over Psychonauts discussion style took hold. Draketo (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is notable if only as the antecedent to more recent window managers (which is currently referenced). I also see no reason to delete it. CoderGnome (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per the previous AFD, some references, third party discussion, etc:      .  The discussions come down to whether these are significant mentions, which is, when it comes down to it, a subjective judgment.  My subjective judgment is that the Gentoo Wiki article is a significant mention which establishes notability.  If that doesn’t establish notability, there’s this PC World article.  And, oh, I don’t use dwm, I don’t develop window managers, and I’m only here because I saw the AFD notice when net surfing.  As an aside, may I point out that Psychonaut’s user page is an attack page and should be deleted; see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Gene_Poole/attackrants, Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Gene_Poole/genepooleisevil, and Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gene_Poole/genepooleisevil (the pages were, in all cases, quotes of other editors saying hostile things about “Gene Poole”).  I hope that Psychonaut can no longer feel a need to attack other editors in his user page but instead assumes good faith.  Samboy (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you may not point that out here. As others have said, here we are discussing whether to keep or delete the article dwm, and not my article- and user-space contributions.  The sources you have posted, which are mostly blogs and directories, have already been discussed here.  The Bulgarian article has only a few sentences on dwm and thus doesn't incorporate significant coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This discussion has been mentioned on Hacker News. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hacker News? This discussion is mentioned all over the Internet:, , , , , (by User:ArneBab (Draketo)), , ,,  and so on. — Rankiri (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks for sharing. I didn't see any other mentions, but I probably would have seen the cmdline blog eventually. In any case, I just thought it might be worth mentioning as it was the first (and only) instance I saw. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think there was any need for a second nomination for deletion so soon after the first one. Regardless, I believe the sources and mentions provided in the first AfD represent enough general notability that the article is worth keeping. Impi (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is sourced and is sufficiently notable.HardwareLust (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep By the standards of those who vote for deletion of any article about software they haven't heard of and which isn't written up in the New York Times regularly, we should also delete the majority of articles on topics in mathematics and science. I have been greatly distressed by the deliberate wholesale destruction of information on computer software that has been going on in Wikipedia for several months, to the great discouragement of my interest in editing. Perhaps "the nomination of this article makes me feel like crying" is not on the list of Approved Acronyms for stating one's position, but I feel it expresses things better than a laundry list of references for why DWM is significant. Ben Kidwell (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough good reasons above. Shadow demon (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong-Keep Typical wikipedia faggotry Antic-Hay (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There's plenty of sources, the software seems established, it passed a Keep within the last week - this smacks of delete warring to me.  Overlord 11001001  18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with a but - I vote keeping in mind that it would leave precedents for my other future votes. Many articles on softwares not with clear demonstrable significant notability could survive when they should not if this is kept. On the other hand, I realise that other basis should be used to establish notability of free softwares than those usually used. As it is now, the article on tiling window manager could accomodate expention where it mentions Dwm. -RobertMel (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong-Keep This is an important piece of the history of window management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefastus (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)  — Nefastus (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Strong-Keep - A simple Google search turns up plenty of references to dwm, aside from "a few blogs and a youtube video." Here's one reference:  I think the FSF is a credible source, personally.  Sprhodes (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Chief sequoya (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Chief sequoya (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This makes me feel like crying too. I used to contribute to the campaigns, but I feel why bother?  I've never used dwm, but I know what it is -- and have used, and do use, a replica of a replica of it. (*Its* claim to a wikipedia article is interestingly not under threat; I won't say which replica since presumably that would just threaten it.)  But I do use many many things that I learned about by following Wikipedia links like this one, and it is clear that the Wikipedia is destroying one of its principal uses and a leading value in destroying this and similar articles.
 * I just noticed that the new issue of Arch Linux Magazine gave dwm's helper program, dmenu, a special award for software of the type they champion ('light and fast').  Of course the people who want to destroy the usefulness of Wikipedia to human-kind will find some reason not to count the writers for Arch Linux magazine as 'reliable' but here is the text:
 * System Menu: dmenu (Visit Homepage)
 * Short for dynamic menu, dmenu is probably one of the most widely used minimalistic applications for Linux. Originally built for use with the dwm tiling window manager, dmenu has since found use in virtually ever other tiling window manager as well as several floating window managers, most notably Openbox. But dmenu is so much more than a simple, keyboard-driven menu. Users have submitted dozens of scripts for dmenu to allow it to function as a desktop pager, media player frontend, and so much more. Just do a quick search on the Arch forums to see what I mean!
 * To install dmenu, use the `dmenu` package in [extra].


 * "'Comment to closing admin:''' Please note the off-wiki commentary on this. Steven Walling  18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article forms another useful node in the ever burgeoning field of open source computing, on the world's premier open source information platform. Google-ability is not a synonym for  Notability. Those who are out of their depth in this area of expertise should not be agitating for the removal of an article that has proven, through this as well as the previous deletion debate, its notability and importance. --Infoaddicted (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Previous RfD failed, nothing has changed in the interim. And decrying "off-site" activism is preposterous. Only an American would love a junta so as to badmouth the very concept of democracy. Sbierwagen (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This debate is being canvassed again. .  Them  From  Space  19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because hiding this discussion from people who are familiar with the topic is OBVIOUSLY a great way to build strong content? You asked for people to find references, this is how you find them.  Honestly, I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that demand secret AfD discussions. Resistor (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Good grief, may god have mercy on our souls, what a useless debate. It's not a corner stone of desktop unix, but it's clearly influential - are we going to delete xmonad next, and then everything that refers to ad nauseum? To people griping about the issue being canvassed - so what? The AfD process is immensely flawed to begin with; you're effectively complaining that you couldn't keep the issue in sufficient obscurity to get what you wanted. hif (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It could definitely stand for improvement, but the topic in question is definitely important, and I see no particular reason to discount the provided sources as establishing notability. Resistor (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into tiling window manager's history section. --Two Bananas (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are determined to get rid of it, I think this is the best alternative. Resistor (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As per reasons above. Furthermore, this AfD is frivolous and reflects poorly on both Wikipedia and the person who requested it. If there were means to do so, I would strongly suggest that the person who initially nominated this article to be deleted be censured by WP administration. Canar (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The notability guidelines are biased against open source software. The reason is very simple, and I believe it is stated clearly in the "nutshell" section of WP:N (bold emphasis mine):

"Wikipedia covers notable topics - those that are "worthy of notice" and have been "noticed" to a significant degree by the world at large."

The fact is, the world at large does not care about open source software. This suggests to me that the Wikipedia community must select one of two choices:


 * 1) Decide that Wikipedia cares about open source software, even if the world at large does not, amend the notability guidelines to include sources frequently cited by activists, and use them to instantly end future deletion debates.
 * 2) Decide that Wikipedia does not care about open source software, unless the world at large cares about it, add a section to the notability guidelines specifically addressing it, and use it to instantly end future deletion debates.

It is my understanding that WP:N exists to prevent articles from growing organically based on opinions and hearsay; the insistence on verifiable, trustworthy and independent sources is intended to keep Wikipedia itself reliable. That is, if any fact on Wikipedia can be traced to a published, verifiable resource, every fact on Wikipedia is itself verifiable.

Open source software is often submitted for deletion from Wikipedia not because anyone has a vendetta against it, but merely because OSS is rarely discussed in the types of publications that Wikipedia guidelines consider appropriate for citation. This is unlikely to change in the near future.

For what it's worth, because Wikipedia is the de facto standard for non-biased information about any arbitrary subject on the web, I think that the notability guidelines should be amended and articles like this should be kept. The internet is a real thing; the fact that you cannot hold a blog article in your hands does not instantly make it less valuable or trustworthy than the same article appearing in a newspaper or magazine. Just like certain publications are baseless tabloids and others are curated by intelligent minds concerned with accuracy, certain websites can unequivocally be held to higher standards of reporting than others; they probably meet higher standards of reporting than published tabloids, too. Max (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with these sentiments, though I think it applies to a lot fields of interest that aren't reported in journalistic/third-party publications. For instance, I've been involved in a few AfDs regarding roleplaying games.  Similar problems crop up there, where a topic is broadly recognized as important by members of the RPG community, but no third-party sources exist to establish that, because there are no third party sources at all.  I consider this THE major failing of WP:N. Resistor (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not very active on Wikipedia, so what you are saying about the RPG community is news to me, but I don't find it surprising. (As an avid gamer, I find that it strikes the same chord of indignant nerdrage in me that learning about this article's AfD did.)  I'm glad someone else sees this situation as a regrettable consequence of WP:N.  For the record, if the community decides to make the second choice (deleting non-"notable" OSS articles), I believe strongly that an OSS-specific Wikipedia knock off should be launched to act as a safe haven for all such articles.  Hell, maybe I'll launch it myself. Max (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Abstain I abstain from voting. ⨂!!!! CHOO CHOOOOO !!!!⨂  21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is currently sourced to reliable sources. More have been added since afd listing &mdash;siro&chi;o 22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The project is actively developed/maintained (see: http://suckless.org/) and is still actively incorporated into all of the top 10 distributions on distrowatch (see: http://www.distrowatch.com). The inconsistency of AFD's is mind boggling to me sometimes, if newspapers are the only basis for notability then how will wikipedia be able to include the information about them all going out of business? (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Close due to lack of consensus. This AfD has become another trainwreck due to offsite activism just like the last one. --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b8s29/the_wikipedia_deletionists_are_at_it_again_this/ Yeah, nail in the coffin, I'd say. I'll go out on a (fairly long, well attached) limb and say that if something makes reddit, it's probably notable enough to keep ;-) . I have a feeling that this deletion discussion may become notable enough to write a wikipedia article on ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment(s) It's a bit tricky to find non-web sources for lots of OSS, simply because a lot of it is web-based; the development model is very similar to wikipedia; only fairly large projects will show up in traditional media. Funnily enough, open source projects are complete open and transparent (For instance, if you don't consider a project's own source code to be a reliable (primary) source, you are simply utterly nuts. :-P ). F/L/OSS projects also tend to be fairly uncontroversial, so it's fairly easy to examine statements about them, and it's unlikely you'll run into NPOV issues. F/L/OSS projects are one of the areas where a wikipedia has an opportunity to shine, but it is currently hampered by fairly unwise interpretations of RS, which go well beyond the intent. Note that there is a political angle to this. Wikipedia itself is an open project. We should not be biased or afraid to call people out, but fouling our own nest due to misguided actions might not be such a good idea either. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Note: can anyone point to a policy that says this page may be semi-protected? The semi-protection policy doesn't mention sock/meat puppeting or canvassing as valid reasons to apply it. 


 * Keep The software is well known and notable (certainly as notable as many domain-specific articles on Wikipedia are), and many of the primary sources are reliable in the technological field. The arguments listed above regarding sparseness of non-web content about OSS have been well-made by a number of users. It'd be interesting to see how guidelines can be established so that articles like this are not badgered. --zootm (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, there is currently no note of this discussion on the article pages, that should probably be added. Also, I've asked on the Notability page if OSS might need special treatmenmt. cojoco (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OSS isn't special. It gets the same treatment as any other subject.--Crossmr (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps OSS, or software at least, is special. Plenty of other things get special treatment. cojoco (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's been proposed in the past, but apparently didn't get ratified. --Cyber cobra (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Surveying this AfD, the prior one, and the article, I find this FreeX article and a paragraph in this Bulgarian PC World roundup, which with a dash of leeway due to OSS having few published sources generally, can arguably satisfy the GNG. Everything else seems to be either user-generated or a blog or a primary source, and thus not reliable. --Cyber cobra (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The freex article seems to be written by someone associated closely with the subject which makes it not independent. If you have evidence to the contrary you might want to add to the discussion about it above.--Crossmr (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hold that the magazine exercised its editorial control by choosing to publish the article (presumably they do some vetting), thus it's sufficiently independent. Anyway, note the "Weak" in my !vote. I also still think the (now reversed) speedy close was absolutely correct. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, doesn't cut it. Even if some "Vetting" was possible the onus would be on you to demonstrate it exists. We don't presume in deletion debates. You either show evidence of it, or its not true. Even if they did vette, the source is not independent of the subject regardless who published it. It simply doesn't qualify. No attempt at wikilawyering gets around that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, like we regularly go out and prove that the NY Times vetts; 'course not, we presume it based on their reputation. I freely admit I'm cutting some slack and again emphasize to you that my !vote was Weak, which makes your need to repeatedly respond rather puzzling. "source is not independent of the subject regardless who published it" the source is the magazine, which is independent and in any case, how major the writer's role in the software was seems to be unknown; believe me, it can be wikilawyered over; let's not and say we did and just both acknowledge the !vote is Weak; believe me, I'm on your side, this thing just barely meets GNG after we give it pity points for being FLOSS. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This site has no reputation like that unless it's been proven. The New York times is a well established institution can the same be said about that site? You're not on my "side" because I don't believe it remotely meets the guidelines. Not even a little bit. Its another random piece of software that has received a couple of trivial mentions in a couple random lists, and has some obviously rabid followers. That doesn't make it notable. Wikipedia isn't a compendium of all human knowledge, and random software projects that no one has genuinely given significant press to just doesn't cut it. The author of that piece isn't independent of the project and if you acknowledge that, then there isn't the slightest reason for you to want to keep this.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete not a single shred of evidence that there is significant coverage by reliable third party sources. No amount of offwiki canvassing can overrule policy and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep/Redirect dwm is about as notable as can be reasonably expected from this kind of program. Also it is the base for several other windowmanagers which by themselves may not reach notability but taken together appear to be significant.  Worst case, dwm is mentioned at the list of tiling window managers for X, this could be expanded to include the extra information at dwm with the one or two good citations there and then have dwm redirect there. SQGibbon (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As notable as can be reasonably expected doens't mean it gets a pass on notability. All subjects are held to that standard. Some are held to higher standards. If its as notable as can be expected that tells us how many article we should have on this subject: 0.--Crossmr (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, I suggest the free software portal admins decide what's the most important issues and what's notable or not. Besides, Wikipedia is run entirely on free software, let's pay some respect. drange (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the role of administrators. They don't make content decisions nor do they arbitrate content disputes. --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A deletion discussion isn't a place to "pay some respect".--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is the Techsource article, the freeX article, and plenty of mentioning in enthusiast online sources, some of which are certainly at least borderline RS for this topic, e.g. . We have articles on Pokemons...  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Enthusiast online sources are often hobby sites. What techsource article? you haven't linked anything and no one else seems to have linked anything to techsource. If you are talking about this, its covered under trivial coverage and doesn't amount to significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree that that coverage is trivial. And what's wrong with hobby sites? The important question is whether a site is reliable, not why it is operated. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to, the site is a self-published blog. Secondly, the text is nearly identical to the translation posted above. Which leads me to believe that both these sources simply quote a single primary source. Google the first sentence and voilà, you just discredited the already thin source from Bulgarian PC World : . — Rankiri (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The trivial 9/2008 mention in Bulgarian PC world (translation) can't be considered WP:RS as it clearly quotes from older revisions of dwm's Wikipedia article. See  or any other 2007-2008 revision for proof. None of the other mentioned references seem to provide significant coverage in reliable independent sources. My earlier recommendation stands unchanged. — Rankiri (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, for the reasons I enumerated at Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software. -- Dandv (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep based on a failed proposal? kind of hard to argue a consensus to keep on something that couldn't gain consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like the United States Declaration of Independence that was rejected by roughly half of the colonists? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a reason this RFC has failed to gather any consensus. The author practically proposes to disregard WP:N, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:SPA and WP:CANVASS in all deletion discussions related to FOSS. Well, unless you suggest that we swiftly ratify this double standard absurdity, WP:N is still the core guideline here and the article's claim to notability is based on nothing but two completely discredited sources and a great number of WP:IKNOWIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF votes. — Rankiri (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * DELETE. THIS IS NOT A VOTE.  FAILS GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINES.  FORUM KIDDIES PLEASE GO AWAY.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above. Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which would be what exaclty? The non-independet sources, the trivial sources, or just the personal assurances of random users that this piece of software is really really notable?--Crossmr (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The true core area of Wikipedia, the area in which our coverage has always been strongest--while outside sources have been generally very weak--is articles on this sort of software. we should continue our strengths, which means that we should continue to be  flexible about sourcing for it, and use the best of whatever is available. Different subject fields need different treatment. I have long advocated the use of informal sources for subjects where that is the literature. The practical way we make the rules is here, because all notability guidelines admit of exceptions and special cases. There are many areas where we have not gotten formal consensus for a guideline because in practice a few dedicated people can block this, but we use the consensus nonetheless at AfD very consistently--as for schools. Some of the people here have not realized that we are not following rules dictated by some higher authority; rather, we make our own rules as we go along, and interpret them according to the consensus.   DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And some people here don't realize that encyclopedia articles should not be based on promotional sourcing, transient fame, and mob pressure. Give me one good source and I'll change my opinion faster than you can say flip-flop. — Rankiri (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as the minimum requirements for notability have been met. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you show me where that happened?--Crossmr (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you quit harassing everyone who disagrees with you? I believe the references in the article as well as the additional ones mentioned here, when combined, meet the WP:N requirements. You, apparently disagree with that conclusion, and that's your right. ··· 日本穣 ? ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a deletion discussion. If you don't want your opinion discussed, I suggest you don't take part in it. This hasn't been a vote process for a long time.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Extant sources establish notability, and it has been mentioned in published research such as: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00022300&soc=SPE . Also, let us quickly move to recreate software notability guidelines. Unomi (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which sources would that be?--Crossmr (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/62218 doesn't cut it for you? Unomi (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The article briefly mentions dwm among other window managers and doesn't discuss it in any detail. — Rankiri (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not even a little bit. Its completely trivial.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have reopened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software for comments and improvement. Unomi (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep "possibly non-notable" is not a convincing argument to delete any article, especially one with references and obvious notoriety within its field (in this case, open source software).  Steven Walling  01:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its completely standard practice on wikipedia and so far we've had tons of people tripping over themselves trying to prove notability and failing, which means it isn't just a possibility.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment One, I disagree with the assertion that the provided articles are not significant mentions in third-party sources. Two, even if they were trivial mentions (they are not), WP:IAR.  It does not benefit the Wikipedia to have a mindset that there are rules that are inflexible commandants we must submit to.  Also, I encourage editors to share their opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software. Samboy (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The assertion is that the article's references are all primary, self-published or trivial sources, and this two-week-long discussion filled with dozens of completely prejudiced meatpuppets has so far produced an inconclusive source with an undeniable conflict of interest (FreeX), an ineligible plagiarism (Bulgarian PC World), a bunch of inadmissible blogs (links 7-12), and a single article at linux.com that can finally satisfy WP:RS but has no actual coverage of the discussed subject. That's right, the time has come to invoke WP:IAR. — Rankiri (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It is plenty notable and there is no reason to delete it. There are plenty other articles on wikipedia that are much less notable, yet they have never been nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat682 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAP --<b style="color:#3773A5;">Cyber</b> cobra (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I love dwm, but that's entirely irrelevant here. As evidenced by this whole fiasco, it's hard to argue that dwm abides by WP:N; while I would say there is a reasonable amount of mindshare around it, sadly very little of it is actually verifiable.  This raises interesting questions to me about the validity of the notability policy, but this is definitely not the forum for discussion of them.--I80and (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Comparing dwm usage data from Debian's popcon to similar packages proves it's indeed notable. It also outranks numerous unrelated packages of significant notability.
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Rank ! Package
 * - style="background:cornsilk;"
 * style="text-align:right"|3688
 * dwm-tools
 * style="text-align:right"|4857
 * xmonad
 * - style="background:cornsilk;"
 * style="text-align:right"|5724
 * dwm
 * style="text-align:right"|5744
 * e17
 * style="text-align:right"|5898
 * ratpoison
 * style="text-align:right"|6450
 * wmii
 * style="text-align:right"|6597
 * ion
 * style="text-align:right"|8800
 * matchbox-window-manager
 * style="text-align:right"|15010
 * larswm
 * style="text-align:right"|15153
 * pwm
 * } —Ive-Ive (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * matchbox-window-manager
 * style="text-align:right"|15010
 * larswm
 * style="text-align:right"|15153
 * pwm
 * } —Ive-Ive (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * pwm
 * } —Ive-Ive (talk) 17:34, 7 March 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.