Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stumpwm


 * 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. policy based arguments concern sourcing and this diesnt have good sources Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Stumpwm

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Besides being recommended in passing as "virtually unusable until you read the documentation" in a linux.com article, which conveniently was missing from this article, I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. Pcap ping  17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  17:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. N has always been unclear for software packages. StumpWM is one of the more popular CL packages, and the replacement of ratpoison, one of the most successful tiling WMs. If it cannot be kept, then I suggest a Merge into RP.
 * And may I note that the nominator shows a severe lack of good faith? Phota, the reason that link isn't there is because it was published in 31 May 2007, and my last content-added edits were in January 2007 because I was then switching to XMonad. (And even then, it's no more worth including than Bash or Unix ought to include comments that it's unusable without reading docs.) A little checking of the history would've revealed that I've left Stumpwm on my watchlist but naught else. --Gwern (contribs) 22:15 25 December 2009 (GMT)
 * Chill. I didn't accuse you of anything. At the time of the nomination, the article already had a link to the linux.com review, which I discovered it only covers it in a few words, but even that coverage wasn't fairly reflected in the article. Instead we have full paragraph quotations from the WP:PRIMARY sources, and advertorial statements like far more malleable and rewritable. If the only secondary source makes a commentary that you consider WP:UNDUE, then this article has zilch secondary sources to write from. Which is is generally a good reason to delete it. Pcap ping  06:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And concerning "N has always been unclear for software packages", what's the point of having a wiki article that simply reproduces the debian package summary or the developer's description? Wikipedia is not a directory of software, free or otherwise. Save for that contested linux.com opinion (which I added), what does this article add to what I can read on stumpwm's home page? Even some screenshots are copied from there. Pcap ping  06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does it add? It is an integrated summary of concepts, links, photos, and related articles. If you seriously think the front page of the StumpWM homepage is as informative...
 * And why do I quote? Because though the statements are practically banal truisms to anyone who has used it, people like you would still object and cry POV - much like you seem to be doing because the article didn't quote the linux.com article and warn readers 'this is a horrible window manager you should avoid!' (Incidentally, what does that linux.com quote 'add to what I can read on' the link?) --Gwern (contribs) 15:02 5 January 2010 (GMT)
 * You should volunteer your services to improve their web site. I'm not saying this in jest; there are many ways in which one can contribute to open source. But, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a better sourceforge. Pcap ping  15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like a perfectly reasonable article to me. If the article feels unbalanced or NPOV to you, then why don't you add the sentences to give it the more balanced coverage that you wish? (i.e. you seem to want to say that its a bad piece of software... although I honestly don't see how that will improve either the article, or the nature of Wikipedia collaboration.) Overall, this nomination strikes me as a "wanton destructionist" AfD, and should be a speedy-keep. 99.153.64.179 (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already added the "evaluation" to the article, so that's not the reason for asking it to be deleted. Pcap ping  09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The round-up basically doesn't review it because Bruce Byfield probably thought it wasn't worth his time to read the whole manual before trying to use/configure it. One sentence dismissal doesn't qualify as in-depth coverage. Pcap ping  09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a very skewed interpretation of that article. It doesn't state that using it requires reading 'the whole manual', nor does it 'dismiss' it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.6 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever my interpretation is, the fact that matters in this discussion is that coverage is one or two sentences. Pcap ping  11:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.