Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratpoison


 * 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   speedy keep. redirect agreed (non-admin closure) Pcap ping  02:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratpoison

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This tiling window manager gets mentioned alongside others in lists in various books  and articles, but there's nothing in-depth in reliable secondary sources to justify a separate article, and we have article on this type of product, as well as notable exponents, like Ion (window manager). Pcap ping  17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  18:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Those are examples of reliable, secondary sources. The notability guidelines do not call for "in depth" coverage (do you mean "exclusive" when you say this?), but only "significant" coverage.  This may be up for debate, but I find those & the other links on google books and google news to constitute significant coverage that certainly have enough facts to fully reference this stub.  If people don't agree with keeping this article, perhaps the several window managers that you've recently listed in AfD (that you've pointed out have reliable sources) should be merged to a single article. --Karnesky (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They are already mentioned list-style in the tiling window manager article (that's where I found them). Given that they're mentioned list-style in the secondary sources as well, I'd say that's appropriate. Pcap ping  22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why do you contend this should be deleted (as opposed to merging and redirecting the articles)? --Karnesky (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can redirect as well, but I suspect that if I did just that you'd have reverted me, and there's no other forum for discussing redirects of non-notable article topics. AfD is "articles for discussion" with respect to notability. The result can be a redirect. See for instance licq (look in article history). Pcap ping  22:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD is Articles for deletion & you should only nominate articles you feel should be deleted.  It is true that some discussions lead to merges, but merges & redirection are best discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question & there are templates you can use to make this easier.  You can notify the contributors to the articles in the same way you can [and probably should] inform them of an AfD.  If you need wider participation, there are also solutions that are less aggressive than AfD.  Please let me know if you need help with this.
 * It seems to me that you are withdrawing your nomination. I would not revert a redirection.  I don't have a super strong opinion as to whether this should be a stand-alone article or should be in a larger article on multiple window managers, but throw up the merge tags & see if anyone else objects. --Karnesky (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2009 (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.