- 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#3 I don't see how this could possibly be considered a spam version of an article which consists entirely of a table; several !voters also point out that is not accurate. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- X window manager ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spam version of Comparison of X window managers. Not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 09:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I would actually place this article as more important then the comparison article. X Window manager is an important part of the X Window System and an general article covering the roles of one is important. BTW I worry that several of your AfD nominations are focusing on recentisms as much of the coverage of the X Window System predates online news services. I had a few books that covered this topic from when I was looking into extending software to communicate with generic X Window Managers a while back. PaleAqua ( talk) 19:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – this article needs improvement and additional sources, but it is clearly notable. There are several books written about this, along with magazines and online sources. Brad v 00:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ Bradv: is there really something written about this in general, not specific window managers? wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, there are things written about this in general. See [1] [2]. While I agree the article does need cleanup, (not sure that 'spam' is the right way to put it), it is a notable topic and please remember that deletion is not cleanup. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep needs sources yes, are there any? yes - there's sources out there "X window manager" gets 6300 Google books. WP:deletion is not cleanup. Was WP:BEFORE even done? (obviously the comparison article is secondary to this) Widefox; talk 16:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Having apparently been written by software people for software people, it inevitably needs editing, but it is not a "spam version of Comparison of X window managers". Books have addressed this topic since the late 1980s. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy keep. WP:SKCRIT#3 I don't see how this could possibly be considered a spam version of an article which consists entirely of a table; several !voters also point out that is not accurate. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- X window manager ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spam version of Comparison of X window managers. Not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 09:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I would actually place this article as more important then the comparison article. X Window manager is an important part of the X Window System and an general article covering the roles of one is important. BTW I worry that several of your AfD nominations are focusing on recentisms as much of the coverage of the X Window System predates online news services. I had a few books that covered this topic from when I was looking into extending software to communicate with generic X Window Managers a while back. PaleAqua ( talk) 19:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep – this article needs improvement and additional sources, but it is clearly notable. There are several books written about this, along with magazines and online sources. Brad v 00:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- @ Bradv: is there really something written about this in general, not specific window managers? wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, there are things written about this in general. See [1] [2]. While I agree the article does need cleanup, (not sure that 'spam' is the right way to put it), it is a notable topic and please remember that deletion is not cleanup. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep needs sources yes, are there any? yes - there's sources out there "X window manager" gets 6300 Google books. WP:deletion is not cleanup. Was WP:BEFORE even done? (obviously the comparison article is secondary to this) Widefox; talk 16:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Having apparently been written by software people for software people, it inevitably needs editing, but it is not a "spam version of Comparison of X window managers". Books have addressed this topic since the late 1980s. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- 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.