Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evilwm


 * 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   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Evilwm

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Possibly non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Primarysources tag has been languishing on the article for years. Psychonaut (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can find some mentions in lists of similar WMs, but that's about it. Pcap ping  17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I dont know how wikipedia members uses google to find references to things, but i found many and many actual articles and pages. I dont know how you can judge this WM, cuz it released about 4 months ago(2009-10-09 []) and it's in active development(maybe not so active, but still alive). This is some referrers: [](from very popular and respected russian IT resource), [], [], []. All of this resources says that this is very good WM, also, as you can see, all messages written in last year => it's still alive. iorlas (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Strike vote by proven meatpuppet of Mclaudt
 * Keep It is well optimized lightweight window manager, so evidentially it is very important for programmers to know about this project to analyze its open code and research the evolution of tiling windows manager to sum all + and develop the best one. It has also a youtube representation — an important rare fact that proves its notability in linux community . Gkrellm (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Since Habrahabr.ru has been invoked as source in multiple AfDs of window managers and other software, I'm starting a centralized discussion about it on WP:RS/N. Pcap ping  06:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It's possible to find sites with some info about evilwm. Like http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20081209154246166/evilwm.html or different wikis (gentoo/arch linux wikis). And of course it's easy to find a lot of posts in blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.27.153 (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)  — 77.35.27.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's nothing more than a reproduction of manufacture's description. Pcap ping  10:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There might be Meatpuppetry here. I have been spammed an email to support for keep by User:Mclaudt (now currently blocked) as if a few minutes also with articles for Wmii, QVWM, and Dwm   Antonio López  (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Shows notability, added references and some copy editing. --TitanOne (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding and adding those links to the article. However, it's not clear that any of them are reliable sources.  The links are, respectively, (1) a reproduction of evilwm's man page (a primary source), (2) a software repository, (3) an apparently self-published web page, (4) a software directory, and (5) another software repository. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, these are all blogs, directory listings and primary sources inadmissible under WP:N and WP:RS. The same goes for Mclaudt's earlier sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two additional sources as external links: PC World and Linux Magazine. These are WP:RS however their coverage is brief; further indication of WP:N is needed. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: What real reason did you have for deleting this? All you've done is made it harder for me to find information about Evilwm. Thanks for going out of your way to make my life harder, because just leaving the page here would have basically ruined Wikipedia. Good use of your time, people. 01:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)RyeGye24


 * Delete: WP:N. I found no signs of nontrivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE take away blogs and tech wikis and there's no significant coverage. I don't think a case can be made for passing GNG.Nefariousski (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment evilwm is widely mentioned as a standard small windows manager. While notability has not been established, non-notability is not obvious to me. It's mentioned in the book The Official Damn Small Linux(R) Book: The Tiny Adaptable Linux(R) That Runs on Anything but (based on Amazon 'search inside'), like the 2 external links, there is little coverage . Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Evilwm is a redlink in http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Guide_to_X11/Window_Managers so repurpose this content in that wikibook, until Wikipedia-level notability can be established. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:22, 8 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.

KEEP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.129.235.14 (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)