Talk:Awesome (window manager): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:38, 14 February 2013

This shouldn't be deleted. See https://www.linux-user.de/ausgabe/2008/12/039/index.html if you need proof of notability. I'm currently working on improving the page, albeit slowly because I don't have much time right now and I'm not very familiar with wikipedia's policies. strcat (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that I've heard about it from many sources, I'd say that the citations in the article establish notability quite enough. I believe the notability template should be removed from the article. Arny (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a second 3rd party reference (note that self-published blogs, wikis, etc. can't be used as references) would be enough to remove the notability tag. strcat (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the notability template. Notability was well established here, feel free to add citations template if you think the article is bad sourced--Neo139 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space Invaders module section is not notable

For what reason should a specific standard library written for this wm, not a central feature, and now removed, be considered notable - especially given the size of the overall article? I'll try to remember to delete this in a bit if nobody contradicts me.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ::In my opinion, a second 3rd party reference (note that self-published blogs, wikis, etc. can't be used as references) would be enough to remove the notability tag. [[User:Strcat|strcat]] ([[User talk:Strcat|talk]]) 20:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 ::I removed the notability template. Notability was well established here, feel free to add citations template if you think the article is bad sourced--[[User:Neo139|Neo139]] ([[User talk:Neo139|talk]]) 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
+==Space Invaders module section is not notable==
+For what reason should a specific standard library written for this wm, not a central feature, and now removed, be considered notable - especially given the size of the overall article? I'll try to remember to delete this in a bit if nobody contradicts me.