Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clfswm

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clfswm[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable window manager. Can't find independent third-party reliable sources. Nothing in Google Scholar or JSTOR; Google Books returns only prints of Wikipedia articles. Web searches turn up only wikis, blogs, and software download sites. Psychonaut (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure those criteria are relevant in the case of a window manager. CLFSWM offers a rare (if not new) paradigm in the realm of window managers, and is, IMO, the best at implementing it. The project is still active and growing. Once it reaches a more stable state, I'm convinced it will attract a great quantity of users, thus making the Wikipedia page all the more relevant. --132.204.242.100 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC) — 132.204.242.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- We're not a crystal ball; subjects get articles here only if they already have lots of secondary sources. Can you point to any reviews or third-party documentation of clfswm in the mainstream tech press? That's what would be required to keep this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two French-language references were just added to the article, but I don't think either is a reliable source. One of them looks to be a post on a Slashdot-like website, and the other a news item from a Linux users' group. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep: though (as Psychonaut said above) both references I added are not as good as should be to keep the article (BTW, "LinuX Maine" doesn't seem to be a LUG), I would prefer to see this article included, as I see a technical merit behind this WM. I must admit though, that given the amount and quality of coverage I would !vote "delete" if a generic window manager was in question. P.S.: I would also note, that all the sources call this software "CLFSWM" (all-caps), and most name the meaning of acronym, so probably the article should be moved to CLFSWM or Common Lisp Fullscreen Window Manager (the latter is the name of the article on French Wikipedia). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references available that mention Clfswm or "Common Lisp Fullscreen" or "fullscreen window manager". Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is as marginal as a computer topic could be. I only see two possbly reliable sources, and in French at that. I do not think that is enough for GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.