Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:33, 2 March 2010

Dwm

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

Previous AfD was a trainwreck due to offsite activism. Original rationale follows:

Possibly non-notable window manager. No references to independent, third-party sources despite calls for them since November 2009. I can't find anything myself via Google, though perhaps someone with better Google-fu can turn something up. If not, the article clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this rationale and have restarted the debate to get a clean sheet after the agitation of a now-blocked user who also engaged in substantial off-wiki solicitation. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I said on the previous discussion, there is simply no evidence that the subject has received significant coverage by reliable secondary sources necessary to satisfy the requirements of WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video doesn't make this article pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-On Delete per lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original arguments. Many sources were presented at the previous deletion discussion, and were meticulously scrutinized by established editors. None of them met Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean, we should also delete the article on the ASIC_programming_language, given that it completely lacks references and is only a stub? That's one of your contributions, and it is far below the influence of dwm - and far below the quality of the dwm article. If you want to be consistent, please clean up in your own garden first and remove all articles you wrote which fail in fullfilling WP:N. Draketo (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ATTP and WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Rankiri (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, and I refrained from using that argument for a very long time. But seeing someone zealously calling for deletion of an article someone else wrote (Psychonaut started the first deletion discussion) but not applying the same logic to those of his own works which are below the bar he uses for others gets me after some time. I didn't put a deletion mark on his article, but asked him to rethink his own logic. But yes, I grew angry, so I'll stop discussing in here for a while. You know my arguments and I know yours, and we won't see much additional useful discussion. Just remember that you are destroying the reputation of wikipedia among many of those people who made it possible (free software programmers).

Free software programmers don't need magazines to reach people, so they don't send copies of their programs around. They know that he main information channels for free software users are online media anyway. So asking “are you in a dead-tree-magazine” has zero value. Rather ask “what do people in the Gentoo forums discuss about?” But I'm presenting arguments again… Now I stop that till I'm relaxed again (and then some). Bye. Draketo (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draketo, the article on ASIC was written long before the policies on notability and reliable sources were formulated. I'd forgotten I'd even written it until I found Soxred93's Tools a few days ago and added their output to my user page. So there's no question of a double standard here. If you feel any of the articles I've started or contributed to fail to meet Wikipedia's policies in their present forms, then feel free to edit them, put the appropriate cleanup tags on them, or even nominate them for deletion. As long as you do so in good faith and in accordance with policy (and specifically, not running afoul of WP:POINT), I won't take it personally. Note that any further discussion on such articles, though, should go on their respective talk pages, and not in this deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't name them as “for deletion”, since I disagree with the notion of overboarding deletion by people who don't know enough of the topic. I don't know legacy programming languages, so I don't think I should be a judge on it's notability, as you shouldn't be a judge on the notability of free wm's. Additionally I think that notability is being misused for deleting perfectly notable pages. And I don't see deleting pages which are useful for users as in any way legitimate (since serverspace and bandwidth are growing ever cheaper). Draketo (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event. Blueboy 96 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we should remove articles because they are on a topic many people care about very much? If that alone would be a reason, we should go right away and delete the articles on christianity and the united states. Since that is clearly ridiculous, so is using the same argument for deleting the dwm article. Draketo (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue. Blueboy 96 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think your interpretation of "significant" is a bit excessive. There was, in fact, an (apparently) reliable source presented in the last AfD, although I don't read German, so I can't really verify that. I also stand by my earlier point that if the decision is made to delete this article (and the other half-dozen articles that were listed), there should be an opportunity to, as a community, merge the relevant and sourced content into the Tiling window manager and Dynamic window manager articles. Also, I am bothered that you would take the actions of a few... over-enthusiastic supporters as evidence to delete, User:Blueboy96. That doesn't seem very impartial; in fact, it almost seems vindictive. I'm also a little bothered by the protection on this page. Not very in-keeping with the spirit of things to exclude people... —Roguelazer (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the previous discussion: “the freeX article … appears to pass WP:RS”. If noone disagrees to that, we can stop this discussion right now and mark dwm as notable. And yes, I speak German (being from Germany) and freeX 06/2007 (archive) has a whole article on dwm. No side mention or aggregate, but a whole article on dwm only. And as Psychonaut also speaks german (as noted on his userpage) he can easily doublecheck that. Draketo (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One doesn't need to speak German to see that the freeX article was written by one of dwm's developers. This makes it a primary source, not an independent third-party source. This was noted by Rankiri in the previous AfD: "I'm sorry but I don't feel that the article in FreeX[1] can be seen as a sole authoritative source indicative of the subject's notability. For one, I generally disagree that a single inaccessible source can satisfy WP:N. Secondly, and more importantly, the article was written by Tobias Walkowiak, who's been very active on on the software's website[2] and who is also listed as one of the 'people are/were involved mainly in wmii and dwm development as developers and contributors'[3]." —Psychonaut (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do know that this is almost always the case in free software? The point is that the article was published by an independent source. And in free software people who are knowledgeable on a project often contribute - just like they do in wikipedia. And in academia, by the way. And your link to “active on the website” points to the mailing list archive. Draketo (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Tobias Walkowiak is listed under “other people” as “Tobias Walkowiak (provided various feedback)”. This doesn't make him a dwm developer (because if it did, the same criterium would make me a developer of Firefox, Mercurial, GNU Hurd, LimeWire, Python, Gentoo Linux, Freenet and many others, which would be far too much honor; and if I were a developer of all these, I'd be an established independent authority and would tell you that dwm is notable). Draketo (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I also disagree with some things in WP:N (especially the fixation on offline sources which puts free software at a severe disadvantage), but that doesn't change its content, as you clearly stated more than once. Either you change your mind on that (then we can include many sources you discarded and dwm is notable, because the points I disagree with would be null, too) or you stick to it, and dwm is notable because of the freeX article. Draketo (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you buy restaurant food and mail to the developers of Firefox as well? The following message was written by Anselm "garbeam" Garbe, the self-proclaimed founder and developer of a bunch of suckless open source projects, including dwm, stali, wmi and st [4]:

I'm glad to announce the wmii-3 release aka 'Zur Steglitzer Bratpfanne . . . The release name 'Zur Steglitzer Bratpfanne' has been choosen because of the following story. Back in April 'garbeam' received a postal package from Tobias 'aka tube' Walkowiak. This package contained a secret treasure - a double-sized Curry Wurst from Western Berlins 'Steglitzer Bratpfanne' restaurant. 'tube' sent this package with express service and the Curry Wurst was still quite enjoyable after warming it up in 'garbeam's oven. [5]

For me, the conflict of interest is clear. — Rankiri (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently sent the author of p2pnet.net 5 Euros for a morning coffee, does that count (and does that make me a writer on p2pnet)? Donations are the only way you can give something back to developers of great free projects who don't happen to live in the same street as you. And a bratwurst is a great idea!

Did the writer of an article about Starcraft(R) pay for the game? OK, chances are he got the game as present so he could review it. Where is “I love this program, here's a Curry Wurst as thank you” a conflict of interest while about every mainstream program review isn't? Rather I see that as showing that Tobias was genuinely exalted by wmii (which by the way isn't dwm).

Do you see a conflict of interest, because someone wants to say thank you to the developers, who spend their free time writing programs which enrich his life and give them to the whole world for free? Draketo (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a conflict of interest, then everyone who ever payed for a program should be banned from the list of secondary sources. Sadly that would leave about noone who could write anything substantial about any unfree program. Draketo (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What further evidence can one possibly expect to find through English Google? A revealing sex tape, perhaps? Please, stop. As I said earlier, even if this was an entirely independent, fully accessible article from an unambiguously reputable and trustworthy source, it would still be the bare minimum that would almost definitely have some difficulty establishing notability in most AfD discussions. Here, we're talking about an inaccessible article from an obscure German publication of no demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, written by a single author who has an obvious personal connection to the software and its creators. There is just no way it can seen as significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject necessary to satisfy WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's only because you deny that the reliable information channels of free software users are online, like the dwm article in the Gentoo Wiki. Otherwise you would see the plethora of sources which show the notability of dwm. And you're falsely taking contributing as a personal connection. Draketo (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And because you call the article in the 2006 12 edition of the russian magazine Linux Format shovelware (though that's international recognition), which I would disagree with, since it's clearly additional value. This is not “oh, and the DVD has some games”, but a naming of Dwm alongside Gnome and KDE. Sure, it isn't Firefox, but that's the case with KDE, too, and the founder of KDE just got the German „Bundesverdienstkreuz”. DWM is most widely known, because it is recognized as the most minimalistic and elegant window manager. If you ask for a really clean and minimal wm, you get dwm. Draketo (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm quite disturbed seeing another deletion attempt, after the first obviously failed and Psychonaut completely ignored my previous input. And, please, “offsite activism”… you mean it's now wrong that people who are knowlegeable on a subject come to the wikipedia and contribute, when they see that their contribution might be needed, because people who know little about their field of expertise are acting on unfounded preconceptions? Should we now tell experts of quantum physics that we don't look into their inaccessible papers (locked in scientific journals) but rather say “you know, quantum vortices never appeared in an independent newspaper, so who cares, if they revolutionarize our knowledge about the inner nature of our world?” Draketo (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all who don't use X11 (and a free software system) but vote anyway, please let me quote from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD: “consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.“ Draketo (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note) This AfD is being canvassed for via email. See WP:AN/I#New meatpuppet recruitment. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N, as I said at the last discussion. Them From Space 08:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in case it wasn't obvious - I agree with Psychonaut and the analysis of the sources in the last AfD. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::::Free software programmers don't need magazines to reach people, so they don't send copies of their programs around. They know that he main information channels for free software users are online media anyway. So asking “are you in a dead-tree-magazine” has zero value. Rather ask “what do people in the Gentoo forums discuss about?” But I'm presenting arguments again… Now I stop that till I'm relaxed again (and then some). Bye. [[User:ArneBab|Draketo]] ([[User talk:ArneBab|talk]]) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 :::::[[User:ArneBab|Draketo]], the article on [[ASIC programming language|ASIC]] was written long before the policies on [[WP:N|notability]] and [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] were formulated.  I'd forgotten I'd even written it until I found [http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/ Soxred93's Tools] a few days ago and added their output to my user page.  So there's no question of a double standard here.  If you feel any of the articles I've started or contributed to fail to meet Wikipedia's policies in their present forms, then feel free to edit them, put the appropriate cleanup tags on them, or even nominate them for deletion.  As long as you do so in good faith and in accordance with policy (and specifically, not running afoul of [[WP:POINT]]), I won't take it personally.  Note that any further discussion on such articles, though, should go on their respective talk pages, and not in this deletion discussion. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
+::::::I won't name them as “for deletion”, since I disagree with the notion of overboarding deletion by people who don't know enough of the topic. I don't know legacy programming languages, so I don't think I should be a judge on it's notability, as you shouldn't be a judge on the notability of free wm's. Additionally I think that notability is being misused for deleting perfectly notable pages. And I don't see deleting pages which are useful for users as in any way legitimate (since serverspace and bandwidth are growing ever cheaper). [[User:ArneBab|Draketo]] ([[User talk:ArneBab|talk]]) 09:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event. [[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy]][[User talk:Blueboy96|96]] 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 :*So we should remove articles because they are on a topic many people care about very much? If that alone would be a reason, we should go right away and delete the articles on christianity and the united states. Since that is clearly ridiculous, so is using the same argument for deleting the dwm article. [[User:ArneBab|Draketo]] ([[User talk:ArneBab|talk]]) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)