Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wmii

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 Keep. Nominator has "voted" to keep and there are no outstanding delete "votes". Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wmii[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Aparently non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Notability/primarysources tags have been languishing on the article for months. Psychonaut (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This one is more notable [1] in Linux Magazine, which also has coverage [2] of its predecessor WMI (window manager), which redirects here, and also in a round-up [3] in Linux Format (full text requires subscription). Pcap ping 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Awesome, Rat, Ion, wmii and dwm are very important window managers. This software implements a revolutionary methods of human-computer interaction. Each of these window managers has unique properties and are worth of articles in the wiki. Stop the Psychonaut, vandal, who marks all the articles about tile managers to delete!Ingwar-k (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Ingwar-k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Nothing to say. +1 to Pcap comment. iorlas (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This manager always noticed with dwm cause it have the same author. Evidentially it is notable enough in Linux Community. For example there is an article in well-known IT recourse in runet: [4]. Gkrellm (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Thanks for the reference. For the benefit of those of us who aren't familiar with the article's source and who don't speak Russian, could you tell us a bit more about it, and more specifically indicate whether it constitutes a reliable source? Please do so at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Habrahabr.ru. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wmii is available in all major Linux distros. It has pretty solid community. And yes the project is not so popular as Gnome or Kde. But popularity doesn't equal to notability, does it? 77.35.27.153 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.35.27.153 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Meatpuppetry Notice. From http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222 (translation): Article about dwm in wikipedia set for removal . . . Proposed Strategy for Action: After registration MUST write at least a couple of lines on his personal profile. To do this, click on the name of its Nick at upper right. It is necessary that nickname in the discussion are not highlighted in red, a sign of very fresh registrant. This adds weight to arguments . . . PS die removal also hangs over Wmii, QVWM, and many other opensource-software.

If you're a linux.org.ru user about to "add weight to the argument" using the above suggestion, please note that what you're about to do is considered highly inappropriate. More importantly, you should know that this issue will not be settled by a simple majority vote. If no reliable sources for this software are found, it really doesn't matter If the color of your nickname is red or blue. See WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment about color. But please tell me what does your link have common with meatpuppetry? Please read the translation carefully, see quote: "We must earnestly and energetically present arguments in favor of the weight of the article and the popularity of dwm. Carefully appends at the bottom of the comment." Please keep in mind that people here write their own opinions and they are not joint by family or subordination relationships. So I insist that you delete Meatpuppetry Notice or present due arguments. I wait for response. Mclaudt (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and WP:CANVASS as suggested by Rankiri? It seems those answer your questions pretty clearly. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. And you didn't present any prof of Meatpuppetry so I insist that you delete this notice. This is wide resonance (cause deleting a dwm suggests the incompetence of editors) and this is not Meatpuppetry cause each new editor presents his own proofs and links, as noticed and cited above. Mclaudt (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. When you, the author that comment, asked people to vote keep in order to "put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts, and to defend this strategically important area.", you violated that policy. — Rankiri (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nico Golde wrote an article in German Linux User magazine 1/2006 in Wimp ist tot, I also gave various talk about wmii. The Web is full of blog posts about wmii, see Google blogsearch results for example. Anselmgarbe (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the German version of the English article mentioned by Pcap: translation. Also, self-published sources like personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, tweets, and so on are generally not acceptable as reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage by Linux User and this Russian magazine (page 22; use Google Translate) seems sufficient. — Rankiri (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Anselmgarbe for finally providing the Linux User article, which establishes notability according to our policy. No thanks to the parade of meat puppets from linux.org.ru who flooded this page with impassioned but irrelevant arguments. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. So you should be glad of increasing of specialists in that theme. Please read Notability of free open source software. Mclaudt (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I realise that observing notability of niche software is difficult, however wmii is one of the "standards" in the tiling WM world, has been mentioned in major publications and is more notable than a lot of other niche software that would never in a million years be considered AfD. 212.225.117.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 28 February 2010 (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.