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

I've seen questionable closes, but this goes a step further. After taking 5 days to close this apparently "complicated" AfD. He has come to the conclusion that [1], there are no reliable sources, there is nothing to verify anything which also means nothing to build an article on. So he agrees that those arguing for delete were right. Yet, then turns around and uses an unconventional statistic, something for which there is no consensus to use, to claim that it is equal to or outweighs not having any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The statistic has this program ranked 5724th by debian. Last I checked Debian rankings aren't indicative of notability, and unless it was in the top 10 I wouldn't even consider it in the first place. But ranked 5724th certainly doesn't outweigh standard notability guidelines. Nor does it outweigh WP:NPOV a proper article cannot be written without any reliable sources independent of the subject. So there could be several reasons to overturn this, but the most obvious one is that those arguing for keep basically failed to establish anything remotely in line with existing policies and guidelines which would indicate this article should be kept. So my argument is overturn and delete. Deletion closes are not the place to be suggesting new methods to establish notability, but we simply cannot have articles based solely on primary sources with no notability.If he thinks debian rank should be used to establish notability, then he might want to suggest it at WP:NOTE but I feel even if the community accepted that, nothing ranked that far down would ever fall under the guideline. Crossmr ( talk) 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse no consensus closure. Everything else would have been a misinterpretation of the AfD discussion. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• How so? He admitted there weren't any reliable sources. How do we build an article without them? How do we establish any kind of an objective neutral point of view? We can't. That is why those sources are required for articles. He flat out admitted that none of the standard arguments address the threshold for inclusion of this encyclopedia and basically invented a new one for the close. One for which there is no consensus. Rankings have been used before (Alexa) but those were thrown out years ago. I don't know if there are any current notability guidelines that even rely on any kind of rankings anymore (except for those that would come in the form of a notable award for being #1). I've also already pointed out on his talk page that WP:CONSENSUS isn't a majority vote, so if those arguing for keep are making arguments not in line with policy or guidelines they don't really have any weight. According to the ranking for which he claimed established notability, 845 downloaded 141 use it 630 don't use it 74 have updated recently. 845 have downloaded it, 141 use it regularly. His deletion argument is that a program used regularly by 141 people is sufficient to be equal to policy and guidelines on wikipedia, including WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Read that again. According to his closing rationale, a program used by 141 people is apparently notable. There is no way that would ever find its way into any guideline or policy with consensus.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• I disagree. If you think the sourcing is insufficient to write a useful article, I suggest you don't. There are plenty of other topics. For me, sufficiently independent sources are available to establish existence and identity, and we always have the repeatedly republished primary sources of the program source (no pun intended) and executable for details. The only fault I can find with Flyguy649's close is that he wrote a long justification for an obvious no-consensus, giving people more to nitpick about. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 09:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Those numbers are obviously wrong. Since this program is configured by recompiling it, it is rarely used through installing an already built package. Do you understand what that means? That statistic is wrong and definitely underestimated. You and many others here have quite strong opinions on a subject matter where you seem to be very far from being an expert. If you were to try to understand window managers and their history, I suggest you also read the dwm entry, while you still can. It is pretty informative, though a bit short. When articles that contain correct encyclopedic information on important topics within its sphere are seriously considered for deletion for lack of traditional "notability", there is a sickness in the system itself. -- Wicked247 ( talk) 20:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• No, the sickness comes from those who want to make claims they can't back up so they try to abuse the process to get their way. The argument that the closing admin felt compelling was the statistics that were linked. They were what was provided during the deletion discussion which showed 141 people use the program. That doesn't even remotely begin to address notability. Your claims that it is very notable or important without any evidence don't really amount to anything. Yet again though we've seen some community with a few interested users manage to make a mockery of the AfD process. If no one really cares enough about this product to give it any press that amounts to anything then it isn't notable. A proper article cannot be written about it from an objective point of view. That's the same threshold for everything else on wikipedia. No one here has managed to demonstrate why this little windows manager should get such special treatment other than the fact that they really like it and we have it on their word that its really popular even though they can't prove it.-- Crossmr ( talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• It's sick because the deleting based on notability rules as you apply them are wrong and immoral. It's obviously not just this entry that is up for deletion, but everything that's not covered in traditional media. I can't even begin to comprehend why you are so insistent on deleting good encyclopedic information, but fights like this are obviously very important for you to win. There are now many pages that reference the "awesome" window manager, but it has been deleted. Now, if you have your way, many pages will reference the non-existent dwm. Maybe we can get rid of the entire window manager section here in the end. It's sad to see people work so hard for a worse Wikipedia. -- Wicked247 ( talk) 10:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Without reliable third party sources there is nothing good and encyclopedic about this article. That is why it was nominated for deletion. Those are the same rules that apply to all articles including FOSS. There is nothing special about FOSS compared to any other subject regardless of how willing its fans are to try and abuse a process.-- Crossmr ( talk) 00:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: "regardless of how willing its fans are to try and abuse a process." Please, regardless of whether someone has understood or misunderstood how things work, AGF still applies. -- Chriswaterguy talk 10:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I suggest you pick up a copy of what you consider a solid encyclopedia and look at the number of sources you find there. Sit down before opening, because there are usually no sources! You are confusing what traditional media (including academia) considers salable with what is good encyclopedic information. -- Wicked247 ( talk) 11:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• I'm the "meatpuppet" who added the Debian Popcon stats to the discussion. I should have clarified that the data is submitted by users who have voluntarily installed the popcon package, like a virtual Nielsen box. 141 is just a fraction of the actual number of regular users. The Debian and Ubuntu projects consider these numbers reliable enough for deciding which packages to distribute on legacy physical media. Also, as already pointed out by Wicked247, it's uncommon for dwm users to use the default configuration. That said, I would, if possible, withdraw my arguments from the preceding discussion. I hardly think anyone with knowledge about minimalist Unix window managers would spend time writing WP articles about the subject knowing that it'll end up in the trash anyway. — Ive-Ive ( talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Out of curiosity, why are the Debian and Gentoo wikis not considered sufficiently reliable? They were clearly written by people other than the authors of DWM -- check the article history! Plus, the teams that maintain Debian and Gentoo clearly have extensive knowledge and expertise w.r.t. open-source software. I'd consider them at least as reliable many of the examples on WP:RS. Scythe33 ( talk) 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (edit: perhaps the article should link to a specific revision?) reply

You never user another Wiki or Wikipedia it's self as a source as a Wiki is usually an open site and subject to false information. Rgood erm ote  23:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

But isn't everything ever written subject to false information? Why should external wikis be disallowed? These sites have editorial oversight, and false information is removed when it is discovered. Other publishers have similar standards of editorial policy. The people who write information in the Debian and Gentoo wikis that's good enough to stay in them are going to be far more knowledgeable about the subjects at hand than drive-by journalists or article writers in other publications. These software wikis are not generally for documenting the existence of stuff. They are to aid the people who must use the software. To that end, accurate technical information is essential. I couldn't think of a better place to find it than in those wikis. -- Xyiyizi 18:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment I was the closing admin. I explained my reasons at the subpage linked by User:Crossmr above. If the community disagrees with my decision to give any weight to the atypical sources in the article, then I suggest that the content be merged with tiling window managers. I'll add more comments here tomorrow; I'm sick and am heading to bed. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

That's like saying the wikipedia article human should be merged with the article animal . While one might be a subset of another they do not belong together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.118.7 ( talk) 01:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse -- Just wait a month or two and see if consensus has gotten firmer on one side or the other. it rarely makes sense to ask to overturn a close as non-consensus. And I remind Crossmr that the community in an AfD can interpret notability however it wants to. Guidelines have exceptions, and this particular one goes out of its way to say that specifically. The community interprets the rules. The community decides which rules to use, and when. People who disagree with me may be wrong, but if I can't get a consensus, I let the matter rest and try another time. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• goes out of its way I haven't seen something this flexible since a slinky convention.-- Crossmr ( talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- In looking over that debate, I can't see where I a consensus was reached, and in looking at the reasoning, an experienced admin didn't see one either. Umbralcorax ( talk) 05:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as it was hard to find any consensus with all the abusive meatpuppetry. I would recommend nominating it for deletion again in a few months if sourcing/notabilitiy doesn't improve. Them From Space 08:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• This is the exact problem. You get rid of the abusive meatpuppetry and you're left without much. It seems like we're rewarding abusive meatpuppetry by keeping the article. Which seems completely contrary to what we should be doing. If you look at the AfD and what he took as the persuasive keep argument, it was the very last argument made. So in reality only 1 person made the argument for keep that he accepted, and that was apparently good enough for him to ignore the fact that there were no reliable sources. I cannot help but think that this is one of the poorest closes I've seen which is not only ignoring existing policies and guidelines but bending over backwards to reward meatpuppetry. Unless he can adequately explain how he feels a program used by 141 people is sufficiently notable that we can ignore the already project wide consensus.-- Crossmr ( talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The closing admin admits it himself, the sources used in the article are not WP:RS as commonly accepted by the Wikipedia community. His closing arguments make it clear that the no consensus rationale relies heavily on the above mentioned statistics page, but that page is in no way indicative of the subject's notability. To my regret, I thought that the program's rank (5724th) made it so unequivocally obvious that I didn't even bother to rebuff that argument during the AfD discussion. — Rankiri ( talk) 14:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• endorse per DGG. It's a guideline folks. Not everything fits the guideline exactly. We occasionally delete things where notability is firmly established (Michelle Obama's Arms come to mind, clearly notable per WP:N and something we have a general agreement we don't need/want an article on) and we occasionally keep things where they aren't. And if I understand correctly this is the 3rd discussion on this in 2 weeks. Please stop. Hobit ( talk) 14:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• The first discussion was closed because of meat puppetry. The second also had the same problem and was basically allowed to be muddled into an effective keep by the most generous allowance for notability I've ever seen that goes far and beyond anything I've ever seen the community agree on to establish notability. and I regularly participate in notability discussions. As I said, his rationale above, claims that 141 people is sufficient for notability. It would be silly to even invoke WP:BIGNUMBER here, because its barely 3 digits.-- Crossmr ( talk) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Concerning the above endorsements, I think I should reiterate the fact that the few established editors who voted keep did so without realizing the details behind the first closure or before it was argued that both of the key sources were undoubtedly tainted. Just as scores of initial "delete: fails WP:N" votes shouldn't outweigh one unambiguous demonstration of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources, recommendations based on conclusively disproved assumptions shouldn't carry the same weight in deletion discussions or anywhere else. — Rankiri ( talk) 15:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Note that I voted with a full understanding of the discussion and endorse the the closure with the same. I do, however, have stricter standards of "conclusive (dis-)proof" than "someone said so over and over again". -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Speaking of baseless claims, could you please identify these reliable secondary sources that offer significant direct coverage of the subject? — Rankiri ( talk) 21:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 23:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Then provide them, because the closing admin didn't seem to find any. If you're going to agree with him, you should probably be buying all of his argument, unless you only want to pick and choose the parts that gets you what you want.-- Crossmr ( talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I've already made my position on the sources and on the closure clear. You are wrong. Now go bully someone else. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 01:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Your conduct is unbecoming of a sysop. If you don't know of any such sources, just say so. — Rankiri ( talk) 01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

My conduct is not up for discussion here. You might want to read some other policies beyond deletion. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 02:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• You should learn the difference between personal attacks and rational discussions. When you make an unfounded claim, don't be surprised when someone asks you for an explanation and doesn't stop when you try to divert his attention with a childish remark. — Rankiri ( talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

If you don't want your opinions discussed, don't take part in the discussion. You might also want to give NPA a read, because discussion isn't bullying. Someone wants to bring something up, I'm free to rebut and discuss. Yes, some people would like to just leave their comment as a vote and disappear, but we haven't done that in years around here. You've made claims you've failed to substantiate. You want to support his decision that there is no consensus, then you should support his decision that no one of the sources were sufficient. If you've been keeping sources in reserve, provide them or stop making unsubstantiated claims.-- Crossmr ( talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't think its useful to either me or the community to continue this. You may have the WP:TRUTH on your side, but consensus on the close seems to be unanimous. Silent majority arguments need not apply. See the points made by others below. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Still waiting for those sources you are claiming. What I have is policy, and it is becoming extremely apparent that you have zero grasp of WP:CONSENSUS. Its not a majority. The closing admin dismissed every single keep argument except the final comment, which means all of those people who argued first, didn't count. He then decided to accept the final argument for keep as being sufficient but its a reason that has never been used on wikipedia to justify notability and one which simply wouldn't pass discussion on any guideline or policy page. That is why it was taken to DRV. You should read consensus again because it is quite clear that the arguments are to be compared to existing policies and guidelines and that argument isn't even on the radar. So a no consensus close wasn't remotely inline with policy. No consensus closes should only occur when there are two conflicting policies which apply in a given situation that are both equally valid. Far too often admins don't properly read debates or the policy and close them as no consensus because they think a handful of people don't agree. They're supposed to actually read the arguments and see if either side, regardless of how many has actually made a compelling case based on existing policies and guidelines.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. When an AFD has been the venue of a full-blooded discussion and there are genuine and valid arguments on each side of the discussion, there can clearly be no consensus and the closure was accurate. Stifle ( talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• So then, I take it you didn't read the link I provided above with his rationale? The closing admin basically said out of the 30 or so people arguing for keep none of them except 1 made a valid argument for keep. The only argument he took as meaning anything was the debian ranking. The ranking which states the software is used by a grand total of 141 people. He claimed that this was the only valid argument of notability and that software used by 141 people was sufficiently notable to ignore a complete lack of WP:RS.-- Crossmr ( talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - This was not an easy close, and it's been pointed out by pretty much all concerned that reliable sources for establishing notability are not quickly forthcoming. I probably would have agreed with the deletion arguments had I participated; that the closing admin did not find a clear consensus in that direction, however, was reasonable for this debate. I do not believe this close rewards meatpuppetry so much as it assumes that the topic is notable regardless, and the admin took the time to explain the reasoning which led to that decision. The rationale was more liberal than some, but not entirely out-of-bounds by any stretch.--~ T P W 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• You think the community would support calling software used by 141 people an acceptable claim to notability? I've been in AfDs where websites and things used by thousands of people wasn't sufficient. 141 people isn't even a hint of notability.-- Crossmr ( talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Shit happens. No reason to make more of it. Your 141 argument was refuted above. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 01:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Really? Where? All I see is one person claiming it isn't right, but they haven't provided anything else to dispute that. Just their opinion. And my argument isn't invalid. Flyguy closed this AfD based on that ranking, he explicitly said so. He made no mention of any other evidence of a greater number of users using the software. If he did, I'm sure you'll be able to provide a diff where he said that. Until you can provide evidence to the contrary the closing admin has stated that he felt software used by 141 people was notable. I won't hold my breath waiting.-- Crossmr ( talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Just my opinion? Look at the facts of that statistic: Only Debian users. Actually, only Debian users who use the "popularity contest" application. Actually, only Debian users who use the popularity contest application and also upload the results. If you also consider that the package instructions tell you to not use the pre-built package, you're willfully being dense if you believe only 141 people are using the software. Let me ask you straight out: Do you believe the statistic to be massively under-reported or not? (Let me also add that I think that 141 active users may be enough for notability for a software project if it has other causes for notability, like several other projects reference themselves as being "clones" or inspired by the original project. Wikipedia is not paper, we can afford more knowledge.) -- Wicked247 ( talk) 10:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes your opinion. Have you provided any reliable sources to indicate how many more users beyond what is listed on that page actually use the product? No you haven't. Until such a time that you do, as far as we know it could be 2 more people. Or it could 200,000 people. We have no idea, but we simply do not take your word for it. The people being dense are those arguing to keep this product on their own insistence without providing the proper sources like every other subject on wikipedia is required to do. Wikipedia is not paper, but we have thresholds for inclusion and this particular little piece of FOSS doesn't remotely meet them and the closing admin had to bend over backwards and pick something ridiculously obscure that would never be accepted in any other situation for any other subject to even claim no consensus. Wikipedia isn't a compendium of all human knowledge, that's a common mistake many make.-- Crossmr ( talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• True, it could even be 15 billion people! We have no idea at all. No, 141 users is the only thing that we can believe to be correct. We have no brains, we know nothing, we cannot draw any conclusions whatsoever. ^{citation needed}

Seriously though, there is significant notability coverage in the form of guides, forum posts, videos, blog posts, and especially other projects that reference this particular one as being the basis for their. If this project doesn't fit Wiki rules, the rules must be wrong. -- Wicked247 ( talk) 13:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this well-reasoned and valuable analysis. As the closer cogently argues, when an article appears to have encyclopedic value, when there are significant indicators of notability, and when the article content does not contravene any substantive policies, the purpose of encyclopedia-building can be better served by allowing the ongoing process of striving to develop reliable sourcing to continue even though its current state may be unsatisfactory. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Look, I voted Weak Keep, but even I concede that the indicators of notability in this case are barely significant. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • My comment is meant to reflect the closer's comment that "the subject seems notable"; no doubt there may be better ways to rephrase this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for all the reasons already given here. I see no reason to rehash them, and I won't respond to any badgering by Crossmr and Rankiri. I've already clearly explained my position on this, and I see this DRV as simply sour grapes and forum shopping on the part of Crossmr because he didn't get the article deleted as he wished. It was very, very clearly no consensus in the discussion. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Discussion is badgering now? Maybe you could make your arguments without the personal attacks. DRV is part of the deletion process and there seem to be quite a few people here who don't have a firm grasp on WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus isn't a majority, its judged based on the strength of the arguments. The closing admin dismissed all of the arguments of those arguing for keep, except one. One which I find to be not remotely in line with any existing consensus for notability anywhere on wikipedia. You'll forgive me if I think that requires another look.-- Crossmr ( talk) 04:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

At this point, you might want to consider taking the lessons of WP:DEADHORSE and WP:BLUDGEONto mind. You have said your point, continuing to repeat yourself does not serve to help your cause. Umbralcorax ( talk) 05:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Comment (no !vote since I'm biased). My "speedy no consensus" close was better in terms of execution. :-) Pcap ping 01:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Seconded -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse because I found his analysis well-reasoned and helpful in that it recognizes the difference between subjective notability and WP:N. It is vitally important to recognize that WP:N is a guideline, not the be-all-end-all of determining what is valuable, encyclopedic information. I think the point made above about Michelle Obama's Arms is extremely pertinent: just as there is information that meets WP:N that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, so there is also information that is appropriate for an encyclopedia that (to some) does not meet it. Good editorship is not the process of rigidly applying rules, but of applying interpretive insight to filter out chap without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Resistor ( talk) 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Comment that I also think that WP:N in general handles specialized fields of interest quite poorly. What we're facing here is a situation where a topic is of note within its field of interest, a field that does not have much in the way of reliable, third-party sources, and even those that exist are often obscure and/or transient (i.e. very few dead tree publications). I've seen this come up in AfDs in other specialized fields of interest. We run into problems where domain experts will say that something is obviously notable, because it's notable within their field of interest, but non-experts don't understand because it's not something a major newspaper or magazine would write about. Resistor ( talk) 05:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Pretty sure we accepted field-specific publications last time I checked. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, but plenty of fields of expertise don't have significant unbiased, verifiable sources. The example here is open source software, where most communication of important ideas is on mailing lists, blogs, and other transient media, and done by people who are involved in the projects themselves. The few independent sources (tech magazines and some news sites, though as noted here, those often use first-party authors) that would report on these usually stick to topics that are only notable outside of the realm of expertise. The other field of expertise I was referring to was Role-playing game articles. The problem there is that (almost) all the reputable magazines are affiliated with one publisher or another, and even when not talking about their own products, the industry itself is quite incestuous, so the authors may or may not be completely objective. Resistor ( talk) 06:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • Fair enough. Just saying we go beyond stuff "a major newspaper or magazine would write about". -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clearly no consensus The bellman ( talk) 03:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Obviously no clear consensus, and the closing admin went to rather remarkable lengths in explaining their logic. Steven Walling 21:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

"solely on primary sources with no notability" There is a problem here this statement is wrong. Please note if you don't trust dwm web site. By the way the web sites is a seconndary source of information from a open source project point of view. Primary source when it comes to a open source program is the source code itself. Any feature of the program that is claimed in the secoundary sources of documentation can be checked for existance in the source code itself so confirming the 100 percent correctness of the secoundary source. Same with confirming or disproving releationship between open source programs. Just because sites claim to be releationship between two open source programs does not make it true way to confirm if it true or not with open source is compare the source code's and the history data with the source code. Evidence of a releationship will be there.

So the wikipedia page dwm is based on secondary source with light notability. http://hg.suckless.org/dwm This would be primary source when particular features where added and by who could be referenced from the primary source. History of patches is there. The dwm page could have a lot more detailed history about dwm if the primary source was used. Even better this primary source is basically absolute either the code for XYZ statement exists or it does not. Same applies to a lot of open source projects in the wikipedia due to primary source not being used.

By the way same mistake is make with lot of reports. The data something is made from is always the primary source.

Of course I can understand the mistake. When dealing with closed source the website would gets incorrectly primary source not a secondary due to the fact you cannot look at the source code to confirm the correctness of website information so the source code ceases to be an accessible primary source so the accessible secondary source of information gets treated as primary. Big problem since the site is a secondary source being used for closed source programs it should be presumed contain errors. Classic example is the bugs that keep on turning up in MSDN it is a secondary source not a primary. Primary is confirming that the binary do exactly as the MSDN says with testcases or being able to see the source code.

Basically you guys are screwing up what is a Primary Source and what is a Secondary Source when it comes to software. So leading to items with good Primary Sources being removed from wikipedia. Articles based purely on non confirm able Secondary Sources should be examined far more closely from the wikipedia. Good example is this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_Window_Manager References are all Microsoft. No test cases to confirm that anything said about operation is really happening. So how do we know the secondary sources are correct. The complete article could be lies there are no primary sources or tests to confirm how truthful the in secondary source is. Only sources people have mistakenly taken as primary and blog crap without any direct evidence with link to primary source other than blog being Microsoft's. By the quality of links on the article I could setup a company making a fake malware virus scanner since my web site says its a top notch working anti-virus my own programmer blogs back it up I could get it put in the wikipedia as a top quality virus scanner. This is the issue of having no true primary sources or tests to confirm real fact.

Basically pick on dwm again when there are not other artical far worse off.

If issue is quality of documentation in wikipedia you will go a long way to get better than when open source primary and secondary sources are used as one to make the web page. If you want confirmation of use there is a bigger issue here. Does wikipedia record history or does it not. Seriously.

Open source projects have complex history. Dwm is the bith source of list of other projects. Claiming no notability is wrong. Notability is not your standard form yes. But there is a form of Notability. Notability comes from that it gave birth to other projects that are still developing. This is recording history. Dwm site could disappear in future if there is no tertiary source record in the wikipedia the history information might be lost. Deleting this records about open source project that created others is basically white washing history.

Deleting pages rules need to be tighted up to stop this destruction of open source history.

Open Source projects that are just a flash in the pan don't normally give birth to other projects and keep on going. Oiaohm1 ( talk) 04:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply