Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd 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. In closing an AFD, administrators are expected to assess consensus, and to do that they are expected to take into account the policy-compliant opinions that have been put forth by those who commented. They can discount the opinions that are clearly incompatible with policy; however, they are not expected to substitute their interpretation of policy to that of those who have commented in the AFD, as long as that interpretation is reasonable. In this case, I see two different interpretations of the notability policy and both appear reasonable to me. I have also considered the opinion voiced by DGG, Joefromrandb, and scope_creep, who rely on common sense, in addition to GNG, to shore up the case for keeping the article. All in all, in my opinion, the only way for a closing admin to avoid a supervote is to acknowledge that no consensus has emerged from this discussion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Xmonad
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable (only passing mentions in sources and literature). I have no idea how this article was kept after two AfDs yet it still, after more than a decade, doesn't have a single secondary source. w umbolo  ^^^  12:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, one of those things that are so obviously notable for many in the Linux community. Software projects (especially open source ones with little growth but with large, stable, userbases) often have issues with secondary sources, but in many instances it's "gutfeeling notable" to so many editors that WP:COMMON overrules WP:NOTABLE. I assume this is what has gone down in previous AfD's for Xmonad. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this software is notable, but I don't like this argument. Wikipedia's editors tend to be overwhelmingly technical and other things. Seems like a good way to perpetuate WP:Systemic bias if your argument is "well, a bunch of editors have a gut feeling this is notable". I don't think this justification is legitimate. Instead, an examination of sourcing should be used to determine whether this article should be deleted, as is done for other articles. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 22:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see that, but to be frank a lot of articles that the encyclopedia benefits from within the realm of open source software have issues with sourcing of comparable degree (see: Syncthing, or other window managers: i3, Bspwm, awesomewm). Open source projects are exceptional in this regard, because since the community works together in bugtrackers and mailinglists or development forums there is little reason to write (good) secondary sources in the first place. I can see where you're coming from, and I think this is the process most AfD should follow, but my argument is really that in cases where secondary sources would be unusually uncommon (how this could be judged in a consistent way I'm not sure, but it certainly applies to many open source projects) more than just sourcing should be taken into account. Regarding WP:Systemic bias, it seems to discuss when views, topics, or perspectives are underrepresented, which is not the case here. --Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and systematic favoring of technical articles over non-technical because of "gut feeling" will cause an underrepresentation, simply because we'll delete articles whose topics we're not familiar with (no gut feeling) while keeping non-notable articles for products we use (good gut feeling). Objective analysis must be used when it comes to topics that are familiar like this. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally - there's may be a tactical problem here with these mass noms - more the other AfDs than this one, specifically with the aim of countering systemic bias. While I agree that WP:Systemic bias discusses underrepresentation, of course the flip side is a harder topic of overrepresentation. Being as systemic bias is about not being balanced, I question the logic of countering systemic bias by fixing the overrepresented areas rather than the underrepresented. I have myself advocated for countering systemic bias of commercial/COI systemic bias WP:BOGOF, and know from that experience that it's controversial (largely from editors who feel obliged to save the topics, which has the counterproductive consequence of furthering the systemic bias by spending more volunteer time on them, subsidising commercial paid editing, and reducing the finite editor time for the underrepresented areas (due to the Streisand effect). If there's no consensus for this hard topic of countering overrepresentation with COI/paid editing there sure ain't one for computer science topics!). Unless done fairly, it will delete notable topics, and in a systemic way. There's nothing wrong with putting more deletion scrutiny on overrepresented areas, but BEFORE must be done and there must be fairness and scrutiny.
 * Neither "gut feeling" nor countering "systemic bias" are arguments backed by policy per se, and must rest on IAR. IAR does allow us to do either (anything) for the benefit of the project, but consensus must be the deciding factor, rather than "objectivity" (which I've seen at these AfDs as being ruthless enforcement of an arguably strict interpretation of sourcing) or subjectivity ("gut feeling") per se, as they may be both POV pushing, which risks prejudging the consensus about deletion specifically/improving WP generally. Generally these mass noms of computer science topics with editors wishing to counter systemic bias can not hold articles to different standards of strictness of sourcing. With this article it is a clash of those two extremes, IAR seems to have been used in previous AfDs. Over the years for this topic, sources are now available so I don't think either argument is now required. The participants of the previous AfDs may be worth pinging for input here, in particular User:DGG had a comment 11 years ago about consistency, to ensure standards, and he has experience and longer view. TLDR - let editors reason their arguments and be mindful that WP:systemic bias is an essay, IAR policy. (Also be mindful that WP:systemic bias includes "Availability of sources may cause bias", so an argument could be made that an academic, small but important topic like xmonad is notable, but underrepresented in sources.) Widefox ; talk 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding why I'm talking about systemic bias. First of all, I doubt Wumbolo is deleting articles to correct for systemic bias; I'm the only one bringing up systemic bias. Second, systemic bias is not a justification for deletion. It's something I'm using to argue against keep votes that are simply "people in this topic area believe it's notable". My bringing up the topic of systemic bias is to ensure that technical topics like this one receive no special treatment from those evaluating it, simply because they're more familiar with the topic at hand. This is what you're fundamentally misunderstanding. You can never get an article deleted for systemic bias. You can only use systemic bias as a defensive argument against those !voting keep. Does that make sense? – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 21:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As someone else said above - systemic bias is an essay about underrepresentation, so using for overrepresentation at AfD is already a stretch (details above). That's not the point, it still has an assumption about other editors, that's been taken so far that it's an AGF one (based on the comments I've seen). One that you're still repeating - what does "people in this topic area" mean? It comes across as a veiled COI accusation. We mark WP:SPAs at AfD, that's about it, all are still welcome and any accusation should go to the right place, like WP:COIN etc. Once you've mentioned it as motivation, the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. It either is, or isn't a factor. This focus on editors is entirely misplaced per WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. At AfD it is far from WP:AFDEQ and not policy based, is it? (I'm aware this discussion is offtopic here too). It has made it BATTLEGROUND and taken the focus on the editors and their assumed biases or assumptions about who they are, and away from their arguments. For instance, you assumed Haskell enthusiasts here, which is an assumption about me that even goes against your previous assumption that I'm just following Wumbolo. They are mutually exclusive assumptions! Is it at all wise for one editor to try to enforce something that isn't policy, especially when it is based on an assumption about other editors? Also pertinent is If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. Editors have complained about overload due to the scale. There's at least two deleted articles which have or are being restored. Widefox ; talk 23:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Underrepresentation and overrepresentation are all relative. My only condition here is that we base decisions on policy rather than on vague arguments about this software's perceived importance in the field, because that's vulnerable to bias. Systemic bias is similar to implicit bias in that we ALL have biases. I'm not impugning the character or the motiviations of people who are biased; being biased is a completely normal part of being a human being! My concern is that we're not being introspective about our biases here, and handwaving notability rather than actually looking at the sourcing. Being a biased person is fine, but I'm trying to encourage editors to be more aware of their own biases. For example, I'm heavily biased in favor of Emacs because I love that software and if you look at the history of my user page, I've had an Emacs userbox since the addition of userboxes to my user page. But if I went over to Emacs right now and found equally bad sourcing, and if I were unable to find better sources on the internet? I would nominate it for deletion in a heartbeat. This is the point of my talking about systemic bias, and I'm not sure if you've completely grasped it yet, because you still seem to think that I'm attacking other editors. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 23:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Underrepresentation and overrepresentation are all relative is rubbish - that's called conflation. deleting != creating. black != white. More deaths aren't the same as less births. You're confirming there's no basis in policy, guideline, or even essay for that argument, its logically flawed and two editors have questioned its use. See WP:CONSENSUS. Here at AfD please instead of inverting an essay, follow policy WP:AFDEQ.
 * BTW - the argument is also logically flawed favoring of technical articles over non-technical because of "gut feeling" will cause an underrepresentation, simply because we'll delete articles whose topics we're not familiar with (no gut feeling) while keeping non-notable articles for products - no, that's inverted logic and conflation of separate AfD events (and assuming the same participants), it should read "favoring of a technical article at AfD over non-technical (AfDs are not comparisons) because of "gut feeling" will cause an underrepresentation overrepresentation", and for a statistically separate AfD with potentially different participants (note participants may be self-selecting for their topic area, so actually biased towards that subject, who knows - I just point out logical fallacies and assumptions) and "not favoring of a non-technical article at AfD because of "gut feeling" will cause an underrepresentation". Of course, this is the broken stick you've been beating other editors with at AfD, but you're assuming about their bias, assuming they can't counter it, and in practice breaking WP:AGF. Please stop now. Widefox ; talk 15:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Widefox, I'm still wondering why you're at my throat accusing me of violating all kinds of Wikipedia guidelines. I'm going to explain this one last time. An editor made an argument that this topic is "obviously notable to the Linux community". I objected to this rationale because "obviously notable to the Linux community" is from the perspective of the Linux community, which tends to be overrepresented on Wikipedia, and that if we were to use this standard across Wikipedia, it would result in worsening the underrepresentation of certain articles. Notice that I'm just objecting to the Keep rationale, and not saying in any way that is an irreparably biased person and unworthy of editing on Wikipedia, as you think I'm doing. In fact, looking at Erik's edit stats, Erik seems like a very productive and consistent editor, much more consistent than myself. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 01:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That reply doesn't address any of the serious concerns (please see above for things still not replied to). (it may help to maintain focus on the higher levels of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement per WP:TPNO).  Widefox ; talk 02:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't understand the claim there are only "passing mentions" in literature. Here is an article that has xmonad as its primary topic. here is another. That's two mentions in serious academic literature (by different authors) that are more than just passing. (Google Scholar search shows many other papers talking about xmonad, but most of those probably fall into the "passing reference" category – still, many passing references in the literature cumulatively add something to the overall case for notability.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also this – – it is only a brief section on it, but slightly more than just a passing reference. SJK (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And is more than just passing too. SJK (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The first article is a primary source and has only six citations. w umbolo   ^^^  10:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think, in terms of notability, there is a difference between (1) the author/creator of something publishing a blog post/website/whatever (anyone can do that, there is no third-party evaluation of quality or significance); (2) the author/creator of something publishing a peer reviewed journal article or conference paper with a reputable journal/conference (there is an independent evaluation of the quality and significance of the work through the review process.) The first article is (2) not (1). Now, (2) does not count as much for notability as a fully independent source does, but in my opinion it does count much more than (1) does. SJK (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG requires independent coverage. That's why it excludes press releases and otherwise content written by the software creator. w umbolo   ^^^  10:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Multiple passing references do NOT constitute notability. You MUST have multiple, secondary, reliable, and significant sources to support the notability of a topic. Nobody has shown this yet, so I'm leaning toward delete. – FenixFeather (talk) (Contribs) 17:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG actually says but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so while it can't be "trivial" it isn't "significant source" but "Significant coverage" in sources. The context being so that no original research is needed to extract the content.. I agree there's issues with those sources above, but those issues are not with the sources now in the article. Widefox ; talk 15:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per others. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * per other or per others? Two editors voted keep, one of them citing a section of WP:IAR. That's not a good argument, is it? w umbolo   ^^^  15:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Lets just have a plain keep. There's enough for a keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – clearly meets WP:GNG. The solution is to add more sources, not delete the article. Brad  v  23:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How does it meet GNG if there are no sources? Which sources fulfill GNG? – FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 06:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't, but they do exist, so it does. It meets GNG by sources existing irrespective of if they are in the article per policy WP:NEXIST. Now challenged, they've been put in the article. Widefox ; talk 18:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep (sourcing improved, more than two RS identified now clearly meets GNG) outlier nom, part of mass nom against norms, including Xterm. Widefox ; talk 18:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject of this AfD has nothing to do with Xterm. w umbolo   ^^^  21:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer the actual topic - sources at this AfD - the several RS I just added are a good start. To bridge between both camps here, Xmonad / Haskell is very researchy, so an inclusion of more academic sources/tolerance seems prudent, which is slightly WP:IAR but more a tip of the iceberg of a practical example of production Haskell. Widefox ; talk 17:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Researchy" aka barely anyone uses it except for a few Haskell enthusiasts, who seem to have congregated here. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL so stuff that is still "researchy" just may not be very notable. Try to look past your own biases, instead of approaching this AFD with the conclusion that the topic is notable, because the evidence shows that it clearly isn't. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 16:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The assertion of notability is twofold: 1. from being written in a functional language, Haskell, yes. Here's a source I didn't use underlining that ''Masterminds of Programming

Conversations with the Creators of Major Programming Languages'' Shane Warden, Federico Biancuzzi, O'Reilly Media, 2009 p181-182. Widefox ; talk 18:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC) ...
 * (added) and 2. as a window manager in itself - which most/all of our secondary sources are about.
 * Low usage is actually an argument to avoid at AfD WP:POPULARPAGE
 * It doesn't help consensus by labelling and dismissing others. You and I are here, does that make us Haskell enthusiasts? Should physics enthusiasts not edit and !vote on physics topics? We often encourage the opposite, not that I think it's an issue here. I do note that this has been relisted to encourage programmers.
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL is irrelevant here (there's no future event etc), but I think you probably mean WP:TOOSOON. That's a good argument for the previous AfDs, it looks like TOOSOON applied before, but now  there's many independent sources and it's WP:BARE. Widefox ; talk 17:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "barely anyone uses it except for a few Haskell enthusiasts"
 * What? That argument is just "if you exclude the demographic of people that use the software, nobody uses it." RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete It's nearly been a week, and nobody has provided multiple secondary reliable sources for this software which apparently is extremely notable. A lot of these keep votes here also have a grudge against Wumbolo, as shown in Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I think this AFD discussion is a prime example of WP:Systemic bias that leads to random obscure articles on free software being kept on Wikipedia. Some free software editors are so bothered by these AFD nominations that they took Wumbolo to AFD. If your free software is so notable, then they should easily be defendible at AFD. Software articles should be held to high standards, especially because they're WP:MILL things that are extremely common in this day and age. Just because you and your friends use this software does not mean it's inherently notable. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I added several. Widefox ; talk 23:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Which sources are the ones establishing notability? None of them stick out to me as independent, significant, or reliable. This article still looks like mostly original research. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 16:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Lifehacker and xkcd sources you removed from the article I put on the talk. I added a further reading section with another one. I'm confident WP:GNG is satisfied. We don't agree, I'm OK with that. You're aware this article is in 12 languages? Widefox ; talk 18:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * xkcd is not a reliable source. The lifehacker article was a how-to. Neither of these fulfill WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Those sources weren't in reply to your question, they were for other editors to see there's yet more sources so they can make up their own mind. Widefox ; talk 20:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer your question:,  xmonad being a successful example (of one of two ways) (paraphrased) "one of the most well known Haskell projects" and the smaller sources in the article. GNG actually says but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material and as someone else said, there's no basis in policy that I know of for eliminating a source as a how-to (and about Lifehacker and xkcd I'm not advocating either as complete argument for notability per se - Lifehacker does count IMHO, but a mention in xkcd as a primary source doesn't count, but does show how this topic has wider influence as a (sub)cultural influence - not to the standard per policy, but as rhetoric. Two editors wanted the Lifehacker source included in the article and one not, so I repeat - consensus seems a way forward). The point is that we base an article on RS, which we can. I agree it's not strong, but there's significant coverage in RS.  Widefox ; talk 02:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're here for the AfD right, not to defend at ANI, so..how many sources did you find? Widefox ; talk 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: We could use input from some folks with strong computer programming knowledge.
 * Comment: As there is some possibility this is one of a number of articles where a non-admin closure might be regarded as controversial can I respectfully request non-admins closure admins only close. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Striker force Talk 15:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment new sources have been added, the article has been improved after the !votes above. Widefox ; talk 15:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I re-read my earlier comments in full;  as mentioned above, they show the development of my views. In 2007 on the basis on one year experience here, I   argued at AfD1 essentially for a strict interpretation of the GNG, with its limitations to   references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. Later that year, I was beginning to recognize the inadequacy of such an approach. The key thing I said at AfD2 was that " anything adequately documented on its own terms should be included". My views have evolved much further in that direction: the notability of something depends upon the real world importance, and the GNG is not necessarily a helpful guideline, because everything  depends on the interpretation of those three key words: substantial, independent, reliable. In practice we interpret them according to whether we thing that the article should or should not be kept based upon an overall view of it. . For most disputable cases, anyone experienced in the conventions of discussion at AfD can equally well use them to make an argument in either direction, depending on the desired result.  The desired result should of course not be based upon personal whim, but upon what is most appropriate for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia.  That's the basic pillar, and the policy expressing it is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The GNG and other notability guidelines are just a way to decide what is or is not indiscriminate, which then gets weighed in conjunction with other policies, in particular, NOT ADVOCACY.
 * An encyclopedia should be marked by some degree of consistency--the principle that people when they come to Wikipedia, should be able to know what they can expect to find; this means we   treat different areas differently. For example, in the last year or two we have adopted a very narrow interpretation of the key words in the GNG as expressed in the current wording of NCORP--but we did this not because of what we think is the likely actual notability of commercial organizations, but upon the increasing understanding of the critical need to diminish promotionalism.  In the other direction, we have from the first and still now, agreed by very strong consensus on an extremely loose interpretation of the notability guideline for geographical features, in recognition of the principle that WP contains elements of a gazetteer as well as an encyclopedia. These are areas where I agree personally with what we do. There are other areas where I do not agree, but the consensus is well established, and it would be foolish to challenge them: for example, the extremely detailed coverage of computer games and some other popular entertainments.  Readers should know what to expect.
 * As applied to this article, the positive reputation of WP was established from the first by its extensive coverage of computer related topics, especially open source software. (as a personal note, I first took WP seriously when I saw a particularly trustworthy & rigorous academic professional using it as a reference in that area). I think we have an obligation to maintain this. There are still limits--some other earliest articles in this area were written based on  uncited personal knowledge exclusively (although often by the acknowledged experts); we no longer do this, and now need some show of decent referencing. For its field, this article has sufficient. Readers in this area would accept them as reliable enough. We write for the readers.   DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This very much resonates with me and is the longer and better answer for why I voted Strong keep early in the discussion. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favor of articles on computer software. Who doesn't want great content for the project? But the fact remains that the sourcing on this article is still not up to standard. Widefox has twisted the "delete" side of the discussion into "Wikipedia is systemically biased in favor of technical articles, therefore we should delete this one" but that's not why this article should be deleted. This article should be deleted on basis of policy without special consideration for the "field"; any such special considerations would inherently further the biases of the editors performing those considerations. The relevant policy is WP:PRODUCT which states that this product must fulfill WP:ORGCRITE to be regarded as notable. This means multiple, independent, secondary, reliable, and significant coverage of the topic. I will now go through every single source and link on the page to show why xmonad fails these requirements.


 * 1) Github. Not independent or primary
 * 2) Github releases. Same as above
 * 3) Download page
 * 4) Clickbait Top 10. Not significant; one paragraph on xmonad.
 * 5) 1 page of a book about functional programming in JavaScript. I don't have access to this book but my feeling is that this is a passing mention.
 * 6) xmonad announcement. Not independent
 * 7) OSNews: barely a paragraph and routine changelog regurgitation
 * 8) OSNews
 * 9) OSNews
 * 10) Haskell Weekly news: Not independent, self published
 * 11) Developer discussion
 * 12) Patch description
 * 13) Manpage (written by the authors of the software)
 * 14) Chatroom statistics page
 * 15) xmonad.org
 * 16) Thesis (WP:PRIMARY) that primarily quotes xmonad developers in an email
 * 17) Blog
 * 18) Stewart and Janssen: these are the authors of xmonad
 * 19) A book of interviews
 * 20) 1 page of a book where xmonad is an "example of rolling your own monad". It's just used as an example of a different concept and does not constitute direct and in detail discussion of xmonad.
 * 21) Another top 10 list with 1 paragraph about xmonad
 * 22) How to article, does not describe xmonad in detail but only how to use it
 * 23) Another top 8 article
 * 24) Some sort of personal blog/journal entry that mentions xmonad a few times in passing.
 * 25) 4 paragraphs on xmonad. The best source so far, but still a far cry from passing Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
 * 26) Passing mention of xmonad, doesn't even describe what xmonad is
 * 27) I again don't have access to this book, but it looks like another passing mention from a haskell programming book. I'm not sure why your choice of window manager would even help that much with "big data"; this just sounds like buzzwordy promotional language.
 * 28) Top 4 reasons I use dwm for my Linux window manager. Not only is this not about xmonad, it's a blog and only mentions xmonad in passing
 * 29) Two paragraphs on xmonad under "Unusual alternatives", suggesting that xmonad is in fact an obscure and not widely used desktop environment, which is true


 * Under notes, there's just a few sources from Stewart and Janssen, the creators of the software and the publishers of the only papers that discuss xmonad directly and in detail.


 * Now you can see why I brought up WP:Systemic bias. There's clear favoritism toward the article here, despite terrible sourcing even after more than a week of improvements. Can we please just focus on evaluating sources instead of trying to make excuses to include this article? – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 23:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Firstly (as I've exhausting explained at another software AfDs), is it actually applicable to use NPRODUCT for free, open source software that doesn't even have a company behind it AFAIK? That assumption needs justifying. Until so it should be ignored. GNG is uncontroversial and what everyone else is discussing. There's 5 sources above, I've already listed them in reply so what about those 5? (Nobody is claiming all the sources here count for notability). What does "Another top 8 article" mean in terms of GNG? Can you point to policy/guideline please, and maybe address the reasoning given above for them. Widefox ; talk 23:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A product being free and open source doesn't make it any less a product. WP:GNG has pretty much the same requirements. WP:ORGCRITE is just more specific and discusses the bar for product reviews. Given the quality of the sourcing, I would say it doesn't pass WP:GNG either, since GNG also requires multiple, significiant, independent, and reliable secondary sources, which this article lacks. Either way you look at it, xmonad is not notable. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 23:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A product being free and open source doesn't make it any less a product. But, Wiktionary defines product in sense 1 as "A commodity offered for sale", and obviously if being free and open source it often isn't being offered for sale. Sometimes we have commercial open source, where there is a company behind the open source project selling support or consulting or non-open source add-ons, but I don't think that is true here. And if you don't trust Wiktionary, then other dictionaries offer similar definitions, e.g. Merriam Webster sense 2(a)(2). Now, it is also true that there is another broader sense of "product", which includes anything which is produced, even if not for sale or commercial use (Wiktionary sense 3, Merriam Webster sense 2(a(1))). But, which sense is WP:NPRODUCT focused on? I think it is obviously focused on the narrower, economic sense of product, it begins with "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself" – it is talking about products as things which commercial ventures sell, not the broader sense of anything which is produced. Given that, I don't think a WP:NPRODUCT is applicable at all to open source projects unless they have commercial involvement. SJK (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, the only reason I'm using WP:ORGCRITE here is because it offers a policy for how to evaluate reviews. It's otherwise identical for our purposes to WP:GNG. We can debate the merits of whether xmonad is technically a product all we want, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use review standards to evaluate reviews just because this software isn't backed by a company. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 00:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't a policy - it's a guideline, and it isn't guiding here but distracting. It doesn't apply by letter or spirit. Widefox ; talk 21:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Comment to closer The attempted use of the incorrect deletion guideline here and at other AfDs is being made. This is disputed here and at other AfDs that ORGCRITE or NPRODUCT applies to this article. As it does not, it should be ignored here by the closer and at all the other AfDs where things that aren't products are AfDed. The bar quoted does not apply. This is the exactly the same flawed argument that was used by Wumbolo "Each piece of software is and remains a product, no matter how many times you call it something else" and completely refuted "A software product is a product yes, but not all software are products no..." ...and not all products are software. Other editors have mentioned this. Widefox ; talk 00:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. As SJK explained above, the status of this software as a product is debatable. Nobody is "incorrect" about this. My argument is that whether this software counts as a product is irrelevant, because the standard for reviews applies to the reviews of this software. There is essentially no difference between GNG and ORGCRITE in this scenario, and I'm arguing for deletion on basis of both policies. The use of this technicality to justify a keep just shows how desperately poor the sourcing of this topic is. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 00:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the other AfDs for how valid this "product" argument is, and how other editor's have questioned it. If you consider SJK's reply (which came in at the same time as mine due to (ec)) as any different to my reply, then you have not understood their questioning of you invoking the incorrect guideline. As this is a procedural aspect, repeating it in the face of consensus against it seems disruptive. Widefox ; talk 00:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop accusing people who are disagreeing with you of "disruption"? I simply do not want to engage in a tangential, unproductive discussion of whether xmonad is technically a product. As such, I've argued that, even if you buy the argument that xmonad is not a product, it still fails GNG. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're free to strike all these erroneous, raise the bar past acceptable norms arguments justified by invalid guidelines, which if memory serves, you've advocated for in terms of "WP:MILL" topics at other AfDs. In this AfD it's very clear cut in terms of xmonad as it's so academic (per above). Simple question - why do you want to delete it so bad? Widefox ; talk 01:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The only "bar" I'm advocating for here is the "reviews" section of WP:ORGCRITE, which can be broadly construed per the text, which even includes restaurants and events (something I think we can all agree is not a product). Is it unreasonable to ask for multiple, significant, secondary, and reliable sources? Also, xmonad is hardly a topic of research. It's literally a program for arranging windows on your screen. This is a piece of consumer software, not a cutting edge academic research topic. And to answer your question, I want this article deleted because it doesn't have sufficient sourcing. After DGG posted their comment today I was prepared to update my vote to "Keep", but I glanced over the sources one last time to make sure they had, in fact, been improved, when to my surprise I couldn't find any satisfactory coverage. And so I could not, in good conscience, change my vote to keep. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 01:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You just want to be allowed to use one section of an invalid guideline? I think that answers that. See WP:LAWYERING. I'm presuming your assertions and questions are rhetorical, as this feels a bit reductio ad absurdum / WP:DROPTHESTICK. These assertions and questions have, however, been thoroughly answered in this and other AfDs. At least you provided some comic relief to finding lots of sources to save notable topics. I will nibble on this one though...your assertion consumer software, xmonad is hardly a topic of research seems to a) contradict your previous assertion barely anyone uses it except for a few Haskell enthusiasts b) entirely forget the discussion above involving my attempt to explain the computer science aspect i.e. #1 of the two assertions of notability, and ignore the contents of the article xmonad - dramatically as we have RS saying xmonad being a successful example of ... monad (functional programming), and xmonad was regarded as one of the most well known Haskell projects and literally as we have research papers and a thesis! You don't expect to convince others with this do you?  Widefox ; talk 01:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Umm... you're not really making any sense to me. If we want to talk about lawyering, you're the one trying to exclude a seemingly relevant policy out of a supposed technicality. Are you saying that Notability_(organizations_and_companies) is useless for evaluating the reviews of xmonad? – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is Tu quoque. You haven't explained how you can 1. hold seemingly mutually exclusive views (asserting both "consumer software" and "enthusiast") 2. assert not a "research topic" when the article actually has research papers
 * The 5 sources I've asked you to look at (twice)? Widefox ; talk 10:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, Haskell enthusiasts are consumers. I don't see the contradiction here. 2. The papers are written by the authors of the software, and therefore do not count as independent. They also have barely any citations because guess what? There's not much research to be done on arranging windows on your screen. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 16:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. barely anyone uses it except for a few Haskell enthusiasts vs This is a piece of consumer software, not a cutting edge academic research topic contradicts by normal usage. Dr Monad (functional programming) is not Average Joe. See enthusiast, computer science (and somewhat prosumer, creative consumer) FOSS, early adopter, Haskell (i.e. niche) vs consumer The consumer is the one who pays something (not true here), mass market (no), retail software (no), consumerism (no), - they're different markets shown by technology adoption life cycle - the context being the market/users of this software. 2. there's no dispute there's research then, so we agree.  Widefox ; talk 18:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you reading what you're writing? You're literally waxing pedantic on my use of the term "consumer software", which, in casual usage, just means software that's intended for everyday use by normal people, which is exactly what a desktop window manager is. I'm collapsing this because it doesn't seem relevant to the AFD. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 9:29 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)
 * I'm establishing that the arguments aren't internally consistent, logical, based on common usage of terms or connected to policy in any way. That's the opposite of pedantry - it's a conclusion. (and about refactoring my comments - please don't do that again as you've been reverted by two editors and it shouldn't have been done once per WP:REFACTOR.) Widefox ; talk 23:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:ORGCRITE is relevant here because xmonad is not an organisation, nor does it have the official backing of any organisation. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable" – it is not a company, corporation, organization, group or service. I think in the context, "product" means something that a company/corporation/organization/group offers for sale, and xmonad is not offered for sale, nor are any associated services (consulting/support/etc) being offered for sale. I think, if we can just limit the discussion to GNG, and not get distracted by other inapplicable guidelines like ORGCRITE or NPRODUCT. Regarding GNG, I think you go through a bunch of sources and some of them you are dismissing on considerations irrelevant to GNG. For example, you dismiss the "Masterinds of Programming" source because it is a "book of interviews". How is that relevant to GNG? Nowhere does GNG say that interviews are automatically excluded (especially considering this is a book of interviews with notable experts and it is published by a respected publisher.) (Also note that an interview is not necessarily a primary source; for example, an interview with a Egyptologist about the construction of the pyramids is not a primary source on the construction of the pyramids. Since the authors of xmonad were not among those interviewed, these interviews – and I presume it is the one about Haskell in particular – are not a primary source for xmonad.) Now, I don't know exactly what the interview says about Xmonad, so can't say definitively how much weight should be put on it, but your justification for rejecting it is irrelevant. SJK (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the technicality of whether xmonad is a product or not, do you believe Notability_(organizations_and_companies) is relevant? This last ditch attempt to argue that "xmonad" isn't a product is a distraction and reeks of desperation. A book of developer interviews is WP:PRIMARY and not independent, and therefore it fails WP:GNG. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 00:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that section is relevant. The "Product reviews" section of ORGCRITE talks about the risk of "manipulation by marketing and public relations personnel". In my reading, the whole point of this section, is that a product or service (which includes restaurant and events – very many events are services which are sold by means of tickets or admission fees, and a restaurant is a combination of product (food/drink) and service (tables/waitstaff/ambience/etc)) – sold by a commercial venture, you have to be careful about reviews manipulated by that company's marketing/PR. Xmonad is not a product or service offered for sale by a company – so I think that risk is simply irrelevant here. This is why I think ORGCRITE is simply inapplicable in its entirety (including that section) to open source projects which are not backed by a commercial venture. Also, I don't believe that book is a WP:PRIMARY source for xmonad – none of the people interviewed developed xmonad, although many of them are very notable (in computer science/IT) for developing other notable things. An interview is not automatically a primary source. Also, I think language like "reeks of desperation" is not conducive to a thoughtful, civil and rational discussion. Let us stick to the topic of how the various guidelines do or don't apply to the topic of the article and the various sources being put forward as evidence for its notability. SJK (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So your argument for ignoring our standards for reviews is that this piece of software is not being sold, and therefore cannot possibly be promoted? This is absurd. You've never met an xmonad/Haskell fanatic in real life? Let me tell you, you'll immediately change your mind when you meet one of them. Plenty of other things that don't have commercial ventures backing them can be promoted too. Are you forgetting the whole Richard Stallman/GNU crusade against commercial software and for free software? Or how about the many campaigns for various non-profit causes like anti-vaccination? You think just because anti-vaccination is "not backed by commercial venture" that everyone is instantly neutral and objective about it? Come on, this kind of argumentation is unproductive. You're literally arguing that 1 paragraph in a top 10 article should count for notability? Regardless of whether you want to consider our standards on reviews, that's still not WP:SIGCOV. Instead of splitting hairs over whether xmonad is a product or not, can we just agree that it's WP:TOOSOON for an article on this software? Maybe in a few years when it's gotten a few more users and more mainstream coverage, it can have an article. But right now? It's just an obscure piece of open source software that very few people, even in the Linux world, use, as evidenced by source 29. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 00:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ORGCRITE does not contain a standard for reviews of software – indeed, the page only mentions that word once, in linking to an example of what is obviously a commercial software product. It is a standard for reviews of products of organisations–and primarily commercial organisations. Some software is a product in that sense, other software isn't. I'm not arguing the standard should be ignored, I am simply arguing it is inapplicable to software like this. Yes, some people become fans of a technology or enthusiastic about it, but that is a very different kettle of fish from commercial marketing/PR, and I think it makes sense to be far more cautious about the potential consequences of commercial marketing/PR than the potential consequences of non-commercial enthusiasm. I don't think comparisons to the "anti-vaccination" movement have any relevance here at all – they are an (obviously notable) movement of people opposed to the scientific consensus on vaccines, whereas xmonad (and people who like it) aren't in any way opposed to consensus of computer science. (Indeed, one of xmonad's "fans", Simon Peyton Jones, is a computer scientist of some note, and is one of the interviewees in the "Masterminds of Programming" source we have been discussing.) SJK (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just going to point out that the only argument the "keep" side has for notability is a few very brief reviews that discuss the topic in neither depth nor detail, but because xmonad users are apparently pure and perfect arbiters of software, we should trust any xmonad users on face value, since review standards that can literally be applied to anything else aren't relevant here. Let's not bend over backwards and do mental gymnastics in order to exclude review standards; if this topic were truly notable, we'd be able to easily find fantastic sources on this without quibbling over whether non-commercial software are "products" or fall under the broadly construable review requirements, or a review that discusses xmonad in depth and in detail. You're trying to lower a bar that's already not very high.


 * The only other source the "keep" side has is an interview of the developers, who note that "The code is separated into side-effect free code, and a thin wrapper for the side-effects.", hardly an indicator of notability, given that all good Haskell programmers aim to avoid side effects as much as possible. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 17:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * note - 5 WP:RS + smaller ones has not been refuted. Widefox ; talk 18:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The messy nature of this discussion has disoriented me so I may have missed new sources you've added. Can you just pick the two best sources and show them? If you can show that there are two sources that are significant, independent, and reliable, I'll change my !vote. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 23:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (see comment above - I've asked 3 or 4 times). Widefox ; talk 23:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you just list the two best sources with a brief sentence explaining how they're significant, independent, and reliable? I would like to conclude this already messy AFD discussion and am willing to consider these sources. I just don't know what you're talking about because I went over all the sources in the article. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 23:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. For an article to remain on Wikipedia, it needs to meet the Notability criteria - and this is well-defined and can't be overwritten by "my friends in the sector know what it is" per WP:NRV. Notability is well-defined and requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources already in the article are definitely numerous, but I don't think sheer volume of references on the web are enough to establish notability. A lot of the sources already cited fail to contribute the notability case, e.g. This article in Ars Technica is cited but contains a single mention of the topic in the context of "this piece of software is not XMonad," and this article at opensource.com is referenced in much the same way. OSNews is now simply a content aggregator and not a reliable source. Many of the sources come from the man page, the github repo or the mouth of the creators and this fails the independence criteria. The only source used that tallies with the 'reliable sources' noted at WP:CSTS is ComputerWorld, but this only contains a single mention of it as part of a top 10 list, which falls dangerously on the border of 'significant coverage'. The two independent academic articles are the closest to good sources establishing notability for me. Neil Mitchell's article does mention XMonad, but it uses this as a sample use case of the 'Catch' algorithm and does not report on it in any depth - it gets a namecheck and description more for context than any real coverage on the issue. The National Science Review article is the only source that ticks all the requirements for sources. One source to establish notability (with many more to bulk out details) is close to the line of notability, but as a relative outsider to this topic, don't tip it over the edge. Hydrostatics (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a Notability_(software) that suggests that we can temper our requirement for sources on software projects but this is a guideline and not a policy and I'm not even sure that consensus has been reached on that since exactly these concerns around notability of OSS have remained unanswered on the talkpage of that article since 2010. Having rules around open source software could make many of these discussions less fraught. Hydrostatics (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not even a guideline; it's an essay. w umbolo   ^^^  15:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you seen this source as well?  SJK (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw it - it's two paragraphs, and one of them is taken directly from the XMonad website. The preceding paragraph in the text acknowledges itself that it is a brief mention. It's a repeating pattern across the sources, that XMonad gets very fleeting mentions. This is exactly the third point raised at WP:NERROR. I cannot find any substantive treatment of this topic. Hydrostatics (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The many sources distract from the few for notability per "two paragraphs" test on the essay (here's list of 5 from above):,  (borderline  (paraphrased) "one of the most well known Haskell projects")... but to come back to the guideline rather than that essay...the context of "significant coverage" in WP:N is to enable an article to be written without OR. (We have RS saying it's one of the most well known projects in this language, and another saying successful example of monad. Although small, no OR was needed to use them in the article).  Widefox ; talk 01:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - Clearly notable. Coverage in both programming journals and publications aimed at end users. Discrediting of sources here is very weak, especially for Warden & Biancuzzi 2009, which is considered "primary" by delete voters—even though it's from a major publisher and contains interviews with the people who created the programming language Haskell, and not the xmonad developers. RoseCherry64 (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Question What do editors here think about a merge to X_window_manager or Comparison of X Window System desktop environments? It seems like there's enough coverage of xmonad in reliable sources for a sentence or two in there, even if the coverage isn't significant and in detail enough to warrant its own article. Practical Concurrent Haskell: With Big Data Applications, though it wrongly claims xmonad is a window manager for Microsoft Windows, does note that this software is unusual for its reliability, along with Warden & Biancuzzi 2009. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 08:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not be happy with merge. In my opinion xmonad, probably the case nearest the keep/merge boundary on this set of X window manager AfDs, now firmly stands on merit, particularly perhaps for utility in source (code) analysis.  There are two approaches for determining it should be kept (as per my vote earlier), one goes per the line of DGG's reasoning, and I would advocate that.  I also believe the article passed notability guidelines with references within the article itself with various references presentable for notability including Mitchell, isbn:978-1484227800, Hu et al, Swierstra, Dolstra et al, and I presume Warden & Biancuzzi 2009 (given RoseCherry64's comments).  Some of these will focus on an aspect of Xmonad (e.g. source code) while others will only consider the human interface angle.  Some are not neutral if used for particular claims, but are reliable in other aspects.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As Djm-leighpark mentioned, the software is als notable for its codebase, which would be very off topic for that article. Wikipedia isn't paper, and such there's no real reason to squeeze it in a broad article about window managers, especially since there's a lot of coverage. RoseCherry64 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The comparison article is not valid as a merge target (inclusion criteria) and as I explained there's two assertions of notability, so two parents Haskell and X window manager. Merge to either and the other well sourced content is lost. Not that I see any need or consensus. Widefox ; talk 01:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, per DGG's comprehensive, nuanced reasoning. I never cease to be amazed at the lengths to which some editors are willing to go to destroy content that people volunteered their time to create, while making sure that 7 billion people don't get to learn about something. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have to attack the motives of people who disagree with you for no reason? Sunk cost is not a keep criterion. My motive here is not to "destroy content" (that only received 20-60 views per day before this, rather than the 7 billion as this comment claims), but to use an objective lens when it comes to topics like these that often receive special treatment from Wikipedia editors. Sue Gardner, former Wikimedia executive, notes that one of the reasons women don't edit wikipedia is because favoritism is shown toward articles like these while very strict standards are applied to topics that are more familiar to less hegemonic demographic groups on Wikipedia. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 16:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, for fuck's sake, get real. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't believe that making Wikipedia a place that's welcoming to users of all perspectives is of real concern? I'm not sure what your comment is saying here. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 17:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're nothing if not entertaining; you can shovel it with the best of them, I'll say that. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is "them"? – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 20:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The ubiquitous bullshitters. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur (literary device) by WP:POVFIGHTER covers it. (deleting xmonad to save female editors would be a non sequitur (fallacy), but it's a straw man). I read Sue's blog, and it actually has I ... quit because ... some pimply faced college kid knock it off by putting all manner of crazy stuff on there such as need for “reliable” sources when if they’d taken a moment to actually look at the reference they’d see they were perfectly reliable! ... . Widefox ; talk 01:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep X has a long history, one of the longest in IT in general, and I think any software associated with that project is notable by definition. I am particularly impressed with DGG's reasoning that reflects my own in so many ways. The current GNG policy takes a broad brush approach, great for general/easy cases, terrible for specialist, fringe and the poorly understood knowledge. I understand the depth of feelings around systematic bias on WP. It's a burden on WP. Although this is not the place to discuss it, the arguments are common and repeated ad nauseam. That is the crux. There is no volunteer agreement that you sign-up to when you join, so what do you expect? For example, if you worked for a charity, their volunteer agreement would define exactly what you could and couldn't do. If it was a company, you wouldn't be allowed near it, unless AD was setup to allow you. So your left with the dichotomy of people who perhaps don't understand what they are working on, by following not quite fit for purpose policies, but still being allowed to tinker with it, based on those rules. They don't know anything about it, that secret or not so secret intrinsic knowledge. That's the fundamental problem. scope_creep (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (1)Only part of the problem is that people do not know our practices Rather, our practice are not fixed, and any of them, written or not written,  can be changed if the consensus supports changing it.  We make our own rules. The practical way to try to change a convention about notability  is to challenge it here.  Practices which depend upon consensus can never be totally stable. But we need some stability, for in practice we could not  do actual work if we challenged everything back to the fundamental principles at every one of the article discussions.    The burden I think is on the people who would challenge them.
 * (2)There is no point coming here and saying we must follow a particular general rule. We have no such obligation. People who want to work in a system of fixed rules should be instead working at a project that has them. To have fixed rules, one needs an authoritative hierarchy to make them and enforce them. The most fundamental principle behind all of Wikipedia is that we do not work in that manner. Most of the world does; we're different, and we intended to be different.  The point of WP is not merely that we are here to make an encyclopedia ; we're here to show that working in an open nonauthoritative manner can produce something as monumental and valuable as a comprehensive free modern encycopedia. (There is very much an analogy to open software; it is not accidental.)  It is equally disruptive to insist we follow a particular interpretation of the rules as to insist that we are a total anarchy.  DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that we should follow rules for the sake of following rules. I just think we should be transparent and predictable about how we implement policy. A potential editor who is interested in editing female YA articles, as in the blog post I linked above, might feel unwelcome and treated unfairly if they saw leniency applied to software, gaming, and other articles the majority are passionate about, but strict interpretation of policy is applied to other less dominant topics. It's about trying to move toward a more inclusive environment, and part of being inclusive is transparent and predictable standards rather than seemingly arbitrary whims of the majority. – <b style="color:SlateBlue">FenixFeather</b> (talk) (Contribs) 08:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.