Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrsWM


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

TrsWM

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Yet another tiling window manager not covered in any depth by independent sources. WP:DICTDEF article. Pcap ping  18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  18:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nope, it's no WP:DICTDEF, because:
 * Major differences:
 * TrsWM is about the window manager, not about the word "TrsWM". Although the only information is (beside the links) that it is a window manager and based on Ion, this makes TrsWM only being a stub. The article itself is expandable.
 * It's no synonym. TrsWM stands for itself.
 * It's no orthographic variant of any other word always existing in Wikipedia.
 * Being a window manager TrsWM is well-defined from any other thing that maybe also could be named "trswm" or so.
 * Minor differences:
 * It is not inflected.
 * It is a noun (an abbreviation used like a noun).
 * It is an English title.
 * The "proper noun" argument is not relavant, because there are currently no entries with the same or similar name in the English Wikipedia.
 * Other arguments:
 * WP:DICTDIF says "that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length". Being a stub is no argument against being a Wikipedia article.
 * WP:DICTDIF also says "a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from". Stubs are articles existing for being expanded and completed, not for being deleted.
 * Traps:
 * WP:DICTDIF says that both, dictionaries and encyclopedias, need a good definition. This is no difference. You can ask if the definition of TrsWm is a good definition. But it is a definition.
 * TrsWM contains no usage guide. For that it has a link to the official page.
 * Is TrsWM "genealogical"? It mentions its origin from Ion. But this is not uncommon. It is part of a full and correct article about a software to mention its origin, because it's part of the software's history.
 * Handling:
 * There is no bad naming. TrsWM is the correct name for this.
 * Because of its shortness, maybe it is a "bad" article. But WP:DICTDEF doesn't say that bad articles have to be deleted. It says they have to be "cleaned up", which maybe is a bit mistakable, because it can mean "to delete" also like "to tidy". But there is a link to WP:REFERS. And also the rest of this subsection suggests "to tidy", not "to delete".
 * TrsWM is a stub with the possibility of expansion.
 * It contains no discussion about etymology, translations, usage, reflections, aso.
 * So, what is the problem with WP:DICTDEF?
 * Arguments beside WP:DICTDEF:
 * "Depth" is no argument. See deletion discussion about ratpoison.
 * Independent sources: For software handbooks, READMEs, homepages aso. are an important information source. They are usually the main source for information about features, use, related hard- and software, or the development history. And in most of this it is no problem, if there is no independent source.
 * Significant coverage: Is this your personal oppinion? Or do you have real evidence? Deletion shouldn't be only based on personal oppinion. Btw: We live in the age of cheap diskspace. Today, a terabyte more is no problem. I go regularly to a Wikipedia meeting in Cologne (Germany). The admins there shake their heads about the "Löscheritis" (deletion delusion). The common meaning is improving instead of deleting. Relevance criteria should be seen as a help, not a checklist. --Duschgeldrache2 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Not notable--see, for instance, this search, which yields no reliable sources providing any kind of independent discussion. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Concerns about notability not addressed despite the long reply in favour of this article being kept. This needs some significant coverage in independent sources, and no amount of readme files and software handbooks will cut it. This is not personal opinion, rather, an established wikipedia policy to sort the wheat from the chaff. This article is chaff. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Drmies. Handschuh-talk to me 11:10, 1 January 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.