Stumpwm ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Stumpwm is one of the most successful tiling window managers. The page was viewed by nearly 100 people a day according to stats.grok.se. I don't see any problem with reliability/accuracy of the sources. AndreasBWagner ( talk) 01:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Although this was a low volume discussion, the outcome was clear because the sourcing wasn't up to snuff and the keep side used arguments to avoid like "Its useful" rather then producing sources to show notability. The discussion had been relisted once, fair enough, but there had been no further input and the weight of the arguments had been pretty clear so I didn't see that a further relist would achieve anything. I can't really see what a deletion review is supposed to achieve as I'll happily undelete it on the spot if some decent sources can be found, and if they can't well, I can't see that we should go round restoring inadequately sourced articles. Endorse own deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • A paragraph about Stumpwm was printed in LinuxJournal on August 2008 (bottom of page) Here is the table of contents of this issue The article is linked as "New Projects". In addition it also has mention in the book Browsers: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. AndreasBWagner ( talk) 15:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • A very brief mention and a passing mention in the context of something else does not constitute non-trivial coverage. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
      • [1] This being given as an example of sourcing for a potential article is pitiful and depressing. Miami33139 ( talk) 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
        • That is a really unworthy comment Miami33139. The nom is clearly a new user who understandably, given how complicated our guidelines are, asked for a review and tried to help their argument as suggested by finding sources. Our task is to explain and educate them in the hope that they will learn about sourcing and inclusion criteria so they can go on to create content that will stick. Snarky, critical patronising comments don't help the user learn and frankly reflect very poorly on your approach to other editors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
    • That book is sourced from Wikipedia's entry on Shawn Betts ([WP] means that), which has been deleted in the mean time. There's a reason why Icon is excluded as a publisher by the {{ find}} template. The Linux Journal news blurb is just mentioning stumpwm together with other new packages, e.g. joyevmouse just above it. By the way, neither of these sources (book or LJ entry) was even mentioned at AfD. Pcap ping 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• I relisted the discussion, but no editor commented in the week post-relist. A second relist is disfavored, and I don't think it would have accomplished much either. As to the close itself, I think Spartaz's assessment of the arguments is accurate. Though I find somewhat disconcerting that two editors can make a "consensus" when there are two editors who disagree, that's the definition we use, for better or worse. But then, about no term on WP retains its ordinary meaning (think notability). If nom can provide some sources the AfD participants overlooked, by all means bring them here. Otherwise, I endorse the close. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• The fact that it has already been recreated as a redirect to Tiling window manager probably makes this DRV a mute point but I'll throw my two cents in anyway. The keep !votes nor the DRV initiator addressed the rationale of the the AfD, a lack of significant coverage. A second relisting may have drew in more interest but with >2 weeks already at AfD and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software probably not. So, with the response that were given, I believe the closer took a reasonable and appropriate action, Endorse. J04n( talk page) 05:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse nominator gives no reason to overturn the AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Any article deleted because of a lack of sources can simply be re-written with sources. To write new source-based material (all material in Wikipedia should be source based) doesn't require the deleted text. Miami33139 ( talk) 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Request does not address reasons for deletion. Guy ( Help!) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• The closer shcould have !voted, not super!voted, even if right, because we make decisions by consensus, not fiat. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I'm confused here SmokeyJoe. What makes you think I substituted my opinion for the consensus of the discussion? I weighed the arguments against policy, poor sourcing is a powerful policy based argument and the two keep votes were not policy based at all. That's not superimposing my opinion on anything. I'd appreciate some clarification of your vote. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Spartaz. You didn't substitute for a consensus, but you did get ahead of the other participants.

There are two purposes for discussions. One, #1, is that by discussing among several, a more accurate result is likely to happen. The other, #2, is that through the process of discussion, the participants become educated on the issues and the mechanism of decision making. This second reason is very important in this self-managed project.

In the AfD, the few particpants do not obviously come to a consensus. The "keep" !voters do not seem to have been persuaded. The nominator (Pcap) dominated rebuttals, and this can be intimidating more than persuasive.

The close may have been accurate and persuasive to most, but it would have been just as persuasive if presented as an ordinary !vote. Ideally, one or both of the keepers would have acknowledged the point, or almost as good, yet another junior wikipedian may have opined agreement. At a minimum, it would have been nice to see Spartaz's reasoning acknowledged as consensus by ensuing silence. Unfortunately to those not persuaded, the close reads as a decision imposed by a senior member of the community. It was an accurate and expert close according to discussion purpose #1, but a less-than-ideal close according to discussion purpose #2.

I don't mean harsh criticism. In cases like this, admins are tasked to resort to a rough consensus just to keep the process working, and the discussion had gone stale while begging for more participation. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

""keep" !voters do not seem to have been persuaded." Since when is that a standard at AfD? Look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/QutIM (3rd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeLight Software. "The nominator (Pcap) dominated rebuttals, and this can be intimidating more than persuasive." Somebody else already called me a bully, and I proudly display that on my user page. Thanks for the endorsement. Pcap ping 01:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse A reasonable close - the 'vote' was 2-2 but the 2 keep arguments were not based on policy, were refuted, our were outweighed by stronger delete arguments that were soundly based on policy. A conclusion of a consensus to delete was therefore appropriate. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC) reply
• Comment. (I'm not going to !vote here because I'm the AfD nominator.) The redirect has been changed to ratpoison because stumptwm is a reimplementation of that software, apparently with nearly identical features. Additional details can be added there for now, and if secondary coverage becomes significant over time, a separate article could obviously be written again. Pcap ping 00:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply