Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination)

3422:

use the best of whatever is available. Different subject fields need different treatment. I have long advocated the use of informal sources for subjects where that is the literature. The practical way we make the rules is here, because all notability guidelines admit of exceptions and special cases. There are many areas where we have not gotten formal consensus for a guideline because in practice a few dedicated people can block this, but we use the consensus nonetheless at AfD very consistently--as for schools. Some of the people here have not realized that we are not following rules dictated by some higher authority; rather, we make our own rules as we go along, and interpret them according to the consensus.

2698:

if you don't consider a project's own source code to be a reliable (primary) source, you are simply utterly nuts. :-P ). F/L/OSS projects also tend to be fairly uncontroversial, so it's fairly easy to examine statements about them, and it's unlikely you'll run into NPOV issues. F/L/OSS projects are one of the areas where a wikipedia has an opportunity to shine, but it is currently hampered by fairly unwise interpretations of RS, which go well beyond the intent. Note that there is a political angle to this. Knowledge (XXG) itself is an open project. We should not be biased or afraid to call people out, but fouling our own nest due to misguided actions might not be such a good idea either. ;-) --

499:" A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video doesn't make this article pass". Uh, the consideration in question, is whether there are reliable third party sources, these are ample see above. There is no reason whatever to discount blog posts by the way: they must be actually *read* to be discounted as either unreliable or not-third-party. There is no reason to think that a blog post is more unreliable than a New York Times article, the proof must come from internal evidence. A brief study will show that blog posts about dwm almost uniformly exhibit prodigious competence; one might have guessed this a priori, from the nature of dwm. Chief Sequoya 2948:

has received a couple of trivial mentions in a couple random lists, and has some obviously rabid followers. That doesn't make it notable. Knowledge (XXG) isn't a compendium of all human knowledge, and random software projects that no one has genuinely given significant press to just doesn't cut it. The author of that piece isn't independent of the project and if you acknowledge that, then there isn't the slightest reason for you to want to keep this.--

2102:- I vote keeping in mind that it would leave precedents for my other future votes. Many articles on softwares not with clear demonstrable significant notability could survive when they should not if this is kept. On the other hand, I realise that other basis should be used to establish notability of free softwares than those usually used. As it is now, the article on tiling window manager could accomodate expention where it mentions Dwm. - 2024:

wholesale destruction of information on computer software that has been going on in Knowledge (XXG) for several months, to the great discouragement of my interest in editing. Perhaps "the nomination of this article makes me feel like crying" is not on the list of Approved Acronyms for stating one's position, but I feel it expresses things better than a laundry list of references for why DWM is significant.

104: 31: 1112:

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

2515:

valuable or trustworthy than the same article appearing in a newspaper or magazine. Just like certain publications are baseless tabloids and others are curated by intelligent minds concerned with accuracy, certain websites can unequivocally be held to higher standards of reporting than others; they probably meet higher standards of reporting than published tabloids, too.

1248:

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?”

560:, 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 3172:, the site is a self-published blog. Secondly, the text is nearly identical to the translation posted above. Which leads me to believe that both these sources simply quote a single primary source. Google the first sentence and voilà, you just discredited the already thin source from Bulgarian PC World : 1066:

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

3421:

The true core area of Knowledge (XXG), the area in which our coverage has always been strongest--while outside sources have been generally very weak--is articles on this sort of software. we should continue our strengths, which means that we should continue to be flexible about sourcing for it, and

2947:

This site has no reputation like that unless it's been proven. The New York times is a well established institution can the same be said about that site? You're not on my "side" because I don't believe it remotely meets the guidelines. Not even a little bit. Its another random piece of software that

2723:

The software is well known and notable (certainly as notable as many domain-specific articles on Knowledge (XXG) are), and many of the primary sources are reliable in the technological field. The arguments listed above regarding sparseness of non-web content about OSS have been well-made by a number

1072:

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

671:

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.

2697:

It's a bit tricky to find non-web sources for lots of OSS, simply because a lot of it is web-based; the development model is very similar to wikipedia; only fairly large projects will show up in traditional media. Funnily enough, open source projects are complete open and transparent (For instance,

2496:

exists to prevent articles from growing organically based on opinions and hearsay; the insistence on verifiable, trustworthy and independent sources is intended to keep Knowledge (XXG) itself reliable. That is, if any fact on Knowledge (XXG) can be traced to a published, verifiable resource, every

2358:

Good grief, may god have mercy on our souls, what a useless debate. It's not a corner stone of desktop unix, but it's clearly influential - are we going to delete xmonad next, and then everything that refers to ad nauseum? To people griping about the issue being canvassed - so what? The AfD process

2197:

gave dwm's helper program, dmenu, a special award for software of the type they champion ('light and fast'). Of course the people who want to destroy the usefulness of Knowledge (XXG) to human-kind will find some reason not to count the writers for Arch Linux magazine as 'reliable' but here is the

2190:

This makes me feel like crying too. I used to contribute to the campaigns, but I feel why bother? I've never used dwm, but I know what it is -- and have used, and do use, a replica of a replica of it. (*Its* claim to a wikipedia article is interestingly not under threat; I won't say which replica

1247:

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

1111:

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

1045:

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

612:

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

815:

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

652:

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 Knowledge (XXG)'s policies in their present forms, then feel free to edit them, put the appropriate cleanup tags on

618:

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

2204:

Short for dynamic menu, dmenu is probably one of the most widely used minimalistic applications for Linux. Originally built for use with the dwm tiling window manager, dmenu has since found use in virtually ever other tiling window manager as well as several floating window managers, most notably

1406:

dwm is written in C. It resembles Wmii, but is organized differently. There are no tools for setup, the only way to reconfigure something to change the source code and recompile it. This is not as complicated as it seems at first glance, since the source code according to the authors promise will

2898:

Nope, doesn't cut it. Even if some "Vetting" was possible the onus would be on you to demonstrate it exists. We don't presume in deletion debates. You either show evidence of it, or its not true. Even if they did vette, the source is not independent of the subject regardless who published it. It

2265:

node in the ever burgeoning field of open source computing, on the world's premier open source information platform. Google-ability is not a synonym for Notability. Those who are out of their depth in this area of expertise should not be agitating for the removal of an article that has proven,

921:

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

734:

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

3753:

The assertion is that the article's references are all primary, self-published or trivial sources, and this two-week-long discussion filled with dozens of completely prejudiced meatpuppets has so far produced an inconclusive source with an undeniable conflict of interest (FreeX), an ineligible

2514:

standard for non-biased information about any arbitrary subject on the web, I think that the notability guidelines should be amended and articles like this should be kept. The internet is a real thing; the fact that you cannot hold a blog article in your hands does not instantly make it less

2023:

By the standards of those who vote for deletion of any article about software they haven't heard of and which isn't written up in the New York Times regularly, we should also delete the majority of articles on topics in mathematics and science. I have been greatly distressed by the deliberate

1822:. The discussions come down to whether these are significant mentions, which is, when it comes down to it, a subjective judgment. My subjective judgment is that the Gentoo Wiki article is a significant mention which establishes notability. If that doesn’t establish notability, there’s this 2191:

since presumably that would just threaten it.) But I do use many many things that I learned about by following Knowledge (XXG) links like this one, and it is clear that the Knowledge (XXG) is destroying one of its principal uses and a leading value in destroying this and similar articles.

2432:

As per reasons above. Furthermore, this AfD is frivolous and reflects poorly on both Knowledge (XXG) and the person who requested it. If there were means to do so, I would strongly suggest that the person who initially nominated this article to be deleted be censured by WP administration.

2922:" the source is the magazine, which is independent and in any case, how major the writer's role in the software was seems to be unknown; believe me, it can be wikilawyered over; let's not and say we did and just both acknowledge the !vote is Weak; believe me, I'm on your side, this thing 2336:

Because hiding this discussion from people who are familiar with the topic is OBVIOUSLY a great way to build strong content? You asked for people to find references, this is how you find them. Honestly, I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that demand secret AfD discussions.

2675:

Yeah, nail in the coffin, I'd say. I'll go out on a (fairly long, well attached) limb and say that if something makes reddit, it's probably notable enough to keep ;-) . I have a feeling that this deletion discussion may become notable enough to write a wikipedia article on ;-)

359:

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

2569:. For the record, if the community decides to make the second choice (deleting non-"notable" OSS articles), I believe strongly that an OSS-specific Knowledge (XXG) knock off should be launched to act as a safe haven for all such articles. Hell, maybe I'll launch it myself. 3843:; while I would say there is a reasonable amount of mindshare around it, sadly very little of it is actually verifiable. This raises interesting questions to me about the validity of the notability policy, but this is definitely not the forum for discussion of them.-- 2205:

Openbox. But dmenu is so much more than a simple, keyboard-driven menu. Users have submitted dozens of scripts for dmenu to allow it to function as a desktop pager, media player frontend, and so much more. Just do a quick search on the Arch forums to see what I mean!

1868:, and not my article- and user-space contributions. The sources you have posted, which are mostly blogs and directories, have already been discussed here. The Bulgarian article has only a few sentences on dwm and thus doesn't incorporate significant coverage. — 3029:

As notable as can be reasonably expected doens't mean it gets a pass on notability. All subjects are held to that standard. Some are held to higher standards. If its as notable as can be expected that tells us how many article we should have on this subject:

994:

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.

2535:. Similar problems crop up there, where a topic is broadly recognized as important by members of the RPG community, but no third-party sources exist to establish that, because there are no third party sources at all. I consider this THE major failing of 2998:

dwm is about as notable as can be reasonably expected from this kind of program. Also it is the base for several other windowmanagers which by themselves may not reach notability but taken together appear to be significant. Worst case, dwm is mentioned

771:

contains nothing but the addition of AfD notices and a few citation links. Yes, some of those links need to go. But suggesting that a few users acting against policy (probably unknowingly, but whatever) is cause for deletion is not a defensible position.

1654:

It's effectively the same nomination, read the rationale. Funnily enough my colleagues here who use X don't know the product. Maybe that's a side-effect of the observed fact that this "important milestone" lacks reliable non-trivial independent sources.

613:

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).

1989:. I don't think there was any need for a second nomination for deletion so soon after the first one. Regardless, I believe the sources and mentions provided in the first AfD represent enough general notability that the article is worth keeping. 2876:

I hold that the magazine exercised its editorial control by choosing to publish the article (presumably they do some vetting), thus it's sufficiently independent. Anyway, note the "Weak" in my !vote. I also still think the (now reversed)

672:

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).

1160:

of the russian magazine Linux Format shovelware (though the article shows 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

3442:

And some people here don't realize that encyclopedia articles should not be based on promotional sourcing, transient fame, and mob pressure. Give me one good source and I'll change my opinion faster than you can say flip-flop. —

2917:

that the NY Times vetts; 'course not, we presume it based on their reputation. I freely admit I'm cutting some slack and again emphasize to you that my !vote was Weak, which makes your need to repeatedly respond rather puzzling.

1092:

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.

1839: 1741:. It is clear to me that the freeX article should not be considered as written by a dwm developer as per Draketo example on how that would make him a developer int he same sense for Firefox, LimeWire, Python etc. As such it 3732: 1965:

Ah. Thanks for sharing. I didn't see any other mentions, but I probably would have seen the cmdline blog eventually. In any case, I just thought it might be worth mentioning as it was the first (and only) instance I saw.

537:

per my original arguments. Many sources were presented at the previous deletion discussion, and were meticulously scrutinized by established editors. None of them met Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for reliable sources.

1835: 1046:

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.

2530:

I fully agree with these sentiments, though I think it applies to a lot fields of interest that aren't reported in journalistic/third-party publications. For instance, I've been involved in a few AfDs regarding

1843: 2640:). The inconsistency of AFD's is mind boggling to me sometimes, if newspapers are the only basis for notability then how will wikipedia be able to include the information about them all going out of business? ( 3239: 1407:

never exceed 2000 lines, and all the configurable options are implemented in the form of macros. According to its authors dwm is suitable for laptops with high resolution display and for widescreen monitors.

1177:

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.

2712:

Note: can anyone point to a policy that says this page may be semi-protected? The semi-protection policy doesn't mention sock/meat puppeting or canvassing as valid reasons to apply it. <scratches head:

2857:

The freex article seems to be written by someone associated closely with the subject which makes it not independent. If you have evidence to the contrary you might want to add to the discussion about it

1303:

That's nice, but irrelevant; other wikis have different inclusion criteria. If any of those translations have sources we haven't considered yet and which meet the English Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for

717:

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.

324: 1846:(the pages were, in all cases, quotes of other editors saying hostile things about “Gene Poole”). I hope that Psychonaut can no longer feel a need to attack other editors in his user page but instead 1076:

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?

832:. 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... — 3130:. Enthusiast online sources are often hobby sites. What techsource article? you haven't linked anything and no one else seems to have linked anything to techsource. If you are talking about this 3051:, I suggest the free software portal admins decide what's the most important issues and what's notable or not. Besides, Knowledge (XXG) is run entirely on free software, let's pay some respect. 2285:

Previous RfD failed, nothing has changed in the interim. And decrying "off-site" activism is preposterous. Only an American would love a junta so as to badmouth the very concept of democracy.

3708:

Its completely standard practice on wikipedia and so far we've had tons of people tripping over themselves trying to prove notability and failing, which means it isn't just a possibility.--

1755:

I would also add that this discussion is about the dwn article and not the state of other users articles (as per Draketo highlighting the ASIC_programming_language written by Psychonaut) --

3731:. It does not benefit the Knowledge (XXG) to have a mindset that there are rules that are inflexible commandants we must submit to. Also, I encourage editors to share their opinion at 2378:

It could definitely stand for improvement, but the topic in question is definitely important, and I see no particular reason to discount the provided sources as establishing notability.

3105:. There is the Techsource article, the freeX article, and plenty of mentioning in enthusiast online sources, some of which are certainly at least borderline RS for this topic, e.g. 279: 225: 111: 3783:

It is plenty notable and there is no reason to delete it. There are plenty other articles on wikipedia that are much less notable, yet they have never been nominated for deletion.

3400:

Which would be what exaclty? The non-independet sources, the trivial sources, or just the personal assurances of random users that this piece of software is really really notable?--

1613:. Second deletion nomination within a week, with no evidence that anything's changed since the last one. Let it sit for a bit instead of essentially edit-warring over deletion. -- 751:

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.

972:

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).

379:

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.

3513:

Sorry, could you quit harassing everyone who disagrees with you? I believe the references in the article as well as the additional ones mentioned here, when combined, meet the

1746:

dwn stands on its own merits and is notable. However I would caution others who are in favor of Keeping this article avoid making statements or arguments along the line of "

3727:

One, I disagree with the assertion that the provided articles are not significant mentions in third-party sources. Two, even if they were trivial mentions (they are not),

657:), 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. — 513: 1826:

article. And, oh, I don’t use dwm, I don’t develop window managers, and I’m only here because I saw the AFD notice when net surfing. As an aside, may I point out that

2975:

not a single shred of evidence that there is significant coverage by reliable third party sources. No amount of offwiki canvassing can overrule policy and guidelines.--

2507:

is rarely discussed in the types of publications that Knowledge (XXG) guidelines consider appropriate for citation. This is unlikely to change in the near future.

1196:

Once again, the program was merely included on the freeware DVD that came with the magazine. The magazine itself doesn't seem to contain any articles about dwm. —

2473:

The fact is, the world at large does not care about open source software. This suggests to me that the Knowledge (XXG) community must select one of two choices:

1340:

There is no article in Chinese (at least, none which is linked to from the English article). There is a Japanese article, though it cites only primary sources. —

1048: 40: 3544:

This is a deletion discussion. If you don't want your opinion discussed, I suggest you don't take part in it. This hasn't been a vote process for a long time.--

608:

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 (

2452:

The notability guidelines are biased against open source software. The reason is very simple, and I believe it is stated clearly in the "nutshell" section of

894:

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

1630:

Second deletion nomination within a week! I am not impressed. In any event the arguments given have failed to persuade me that this article should be deleted.

1508:. Only one source that could be construed as reliable covers it in depth. The PC World Bulgaria article has little coverage; that's enough to add it to (say) 318: 284: 3151:

I disagree that that coverage is trivial. And what's wrong with hobby sites? The important question is whether a site is reliable, not why it is operated. --

861:. 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 ( 1021:

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

2777: 1927: 3328:

is still the core guideline here and the article's claim to notability is based on nothing but two completely discredited sources and a great number of

1376:

The Bulgarian magazine article has only three sentences on dwm in a long list of window managers; this probably doesn't count as significant coverage. —

1790:. This article is notable if only as the antecedent to more recent window managers (which is currently referenced). I also see no reason to delete it. 3279: 1142:. Otherwise you would see the plethora of sources which show the notability of dwm. And you're falsely taking contributing as a personal connection. 653:

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

2359:

is immensely flawed to begin with; you're effectively complaining that you couldn't keep the issue in sufficient obscurity to get what you wanted.

1636:. Are you crazy? Perhaps you are not interested in X window managers (and I don't blame you), but to those who are, dwm is an important milestone. 3173: 1769:

Sorry about that. As I said I kept myself from that for a long time, but at some point frustration over Psychonauts discussion style took hold.

1326:

Can you read Chinese? If yes, please check the article. If not: welcome to the club :) - I just added one more source from the italian version.

816:

other half-dozen articles that were listed), there should be an opportunity to, as a community, merge the relevant and sourced content into the

220: 1918: 2481:, amend the notability guidelines to include sources frequently cited by activists, and use them to instantly end future deletion debates. 120: 3754:

plagiarism (Bulgarian PC World), a bunch of inadmissible blogs (links 7-12), and a single article at linux.com that can finally satisfy

2325: 1512:

as a similar WM that's configured by editing the C source instead of using scripting, but not enough for a separate article in my view.

1466: 990:(especially the fixation on offline sources which puts free software at a severe disadvantage), but that doesn't change its content, as 2672: 2309: 2158: 1940: 150: 2795: 1678: 1266: 17: 4003: 2168:- A simple Google search turns up plenty of references to dwm, aside from "a few blogs and a youtube video." Here's one reference: 3673: 619:

the Gentoo forums discuss about?” But I'm presenting arguments again… Now I stop that till I'm relaxed again (and then some). Bye.

898:. Secondly, and more importantly, the article was written by Tobias Walkowiak, who's been very active on on the software's website 2740:

FYI, there is currently no note of this discussion on the article pages, that should probably be added. Also, I've asked on the

3205: 2561:

community is news to me, but I don't find it surprising. (As an avid gamer, I find that it strikes the same chord of indignant

1390:

What sentences are you talking about? I see five sentences (not including the mention under "awesome"), like in the original. --

2565:

in me that learning about this article's AfD did.) I'm glad someone else sees this situation as a regrettable consequence of

3525: 3476: 2488:, add a section to the notability guidelines specifically addressing it, and use it to instantly end future deletion debates. 2154: 2135: 136: 961: 3127: 887:

article was written by one of dwm's developers. This makes it a primary source, not an independent third-party source.

3799: 2619: 1864:

No, you may not point that out here. As others have said, here we are discussing whether to keep or delete the article

1537: 1516: 3985: 3864:

to similar packages proves it's indeed notable. It also outranks numerous unrelated packages of significant notability.

3260:

Keep based on a failed proposal? kind of hard to argue a consensus to keep on something that couldn't gain consensus.--

65: 46: 2724:

of users. It'd be interesting to see how guidelines can be established so that articles like this are not badgered. --

2503:

is often submitted for deletion from Knowledge (XXG) not because anyone has a vendetta against it, but merely because

3697:

article, especially one with references and obvious notoriety within its field (in this case, open source software).

1685:". Secondly, not knowing about something in an article constitutes no reason that it should not be there. My vote is 1138:

But that's only because you deny that the reliable information channels of free software users are online, like the

3970: 3852: 3825: 3803: 3771: 3744: 3717: 3703: 3685: 3656: 3642: 3621: 3600: 3582: 3553: 3535: 3504: 3486: 3452: 3433: 3409: 3391: 3374: 3345: 3291: 3269: 3251: 3228: 3184: 3160: 3142: 3117: 3095: 3081: 3060: 3039: 3020: 2984: 2957: 2942: 2908: 2893: 2867: 2852: 2810: 2789: 2767: 2753: 2733: 2707: 2685: 2666: 2654:

due to lack of consensus. This AfD has become another trainwreck due to offsite activism just like the last one. --

2645: 2622: 2600: 2578: 2548: 2524: 2442: 2422: 2408: 2387: 2368: 2346: 2331: 2294: 2275: 2250: 2232: 2180: 2139: 2111: 2094: 2087: 2067: 2050: 2033: 2015: 1998: 1977: 1954: 1902: 1877: 1859: 1799: 1778: 1764: 1733: 1721: 1698: 1668: 1645: 1622: 1605: 1588: 1563: 1542: 1521: 1493: 1472: 1434: 1418: 1399: 1385: 1371: 1349: 1335: 1321: 1298: 1281: 1257: 1219: 1205: 1187: 1151: 1129: 1102: 1085: 1061: 1004: 981: 931: 916: 878: 841: 801: 781: 758: 744: 725: 695: 681: 666: 628: 599: 573: 547: 528: 502: 483: 462: 436: 414: 392: 373: 87: 3133:, its covered under trivial coverage and doesn't amount to significant coverage in reliable third party sources.-- 2311: 339: 109:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

637: 557: 3570: 828:, I am bothered that you would take the actions of a few... over-enthusiastic supporters as evidence to delete, 429: 306: 182: 3984:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3287: 3156: 3113: 2593: 1972: 1897: 1601: 64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

1831: 3835:

I love dwm, but that's entirely irrelevant here. As evidenced by this whole fiasco, it's hard to argue that

1289:

Please also keep in mind that the article has substantial translations into 9 languages (some extending it).

3296:

There is a reason this RFC has failed to gather any consensus. The author practically proposes to disregard

2320: 2228: 2220: 1912: 1534: 1513: 1461: 944:. This doesn't make him a dwm developer (because if it did, the same criterium would make me a developer of 252: 247: 3787: 3333: 2123: 1425:

Sorry, you're right—five sentences, not three. My point about significant coverage still stands, though. —

587: 361: 166: 140: 2271: 2046: 2011: 1559: 1210:

No, that's not an article, that's just a list of the stuff on the DVD. The section is called "Desktop". --

821: 256: 3810: 3131: 125: 2703: 2681: 2404: 2396: 2082: 2029: 1748:

people like us wrote the wikipedia software so you owe us and should therefore keep this in just because

1582: 817: 3633:. The article briefly mentions dwm among other window managers and doesn't discuss it in any detail. — 1480:, in case it wasn't obvious - I agree with Psychonaut and the analysis of the sources in the last AfD. 3170: 2832:, which with a dash of leeway due to OSS having few published sources generally, can arguably satisfy 3822: 3078: 3056: 2939: 2890: 2849: 2807: 2663: 2500: 2290: 1873: 1795: 1694: 1641: 1637: 1430: 1381: 1345: 1317: 912: 837: 777: 662: 543: 369: 300: 239: 3329: 3317: 865:) has a whole article on dwm. No side mention or aggregate, but a whole article on dwm only. And as 3698: 3368: 3283: 3152: 3109: 2673:

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/b8s29/the_wikipedia_deletionists_are_at_it_again_this/

2641: 2574: 2520: 2245: 2146: 2127: 2107: 2063: 1967: 1892: 1810: 1597: 1023:

founder and developer of a bunch of suckless open source projects, including dwm, stali, wmi and st

755: 722: 479: 412: 332: 85: 3215:

or any other 2007-2008 revision for proof. None of the other mentioned references seem to provide

2486:

Knowledge (XXG) does not care about open source software, unless the world at large cares about it

1921: 445:. As I said on the previous discussion, there is simply no evidence that the subject has received 3531: 3482: 3387: 3016: 2544: 2418: 2383: 2342: 2315: 2224: 2216: 2176: 2150: 2131: 1760: 1730: 1618: 1456: 172: 103: 78: 3066: 2836:. Everything else seems to be either user-generated or a blog or a primary source, and thus not 1265:

To all who don't use X11 (and a free software system) but vote anyway, please let me quote from

654: 296: 3758:

but has no actual coverage of the discussed subject. That's right, the time has come to invoke

2636:) and is still actively incorporated into all of the top 10 distributions on distrowatch (see: 3966: 3767: 3713: 3652: 3638: 3596: 3569:

Extant sources establish notability, and it has been mentioned in published research such as:

3549: 3500: 3448: 3405: 3341: 3265: 3224: 3180: 3138: 3091: 3035: 2980: 2953: 2904: 2863: 2763: 2610:

The article is currently sourced to reliable sources. More have been added since afd listing —

2562: 2532: 2267: 2042: 2007: 1950: 1774: 1555: 1414: 1367: 1331: 1294: 1277: 1253: 1201: 1183: 1147: 1125: 1098: 1081: 1057: 1000: 977: 927: 874: 797: 740: 691: 677: 624: 595: 569: 524: 458: 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3361:. THIS IS NOT A VOTE. FAILS GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINES. FORUM KIDDIES PLEASE GO AWAY. 1683:“consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.“ 1271:“consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.“ 583: 423: 3848: 3795: 3740: 2785: 2749: 2699: 2677: 2614: 2400: 2025: 1855: 1577: 1174: 903:'people are/were involved mainly in wmii and dwm development as developers and contributors' 3759: 3728: 3313: 3309: 2833: 1847: 346: 3814: 3681: 3617: 3578: 3247: 3070: 3052: 2931: 2882: 2841: 2799: 2729: 2655: 2438: 2286: 1869: 1791: 1690: 1426: 1377: 1341: 1313: 1244: 1243:

I'm quite disturbed seeing another deletion attempt, after the first obviously failed and

908: 866: 833: 773: 658: 609: 539: 365: 3755: 3305: 3301: 3209: 2837: 1551: 1305: 856: 645: 3674:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software

3517:

requirements. You, apparently disagree with that conclusion, and that's your right. ···

3362: 2570: 2516: 2266:

through this as well as the previous deletion debate, its notability and importance. --

2103: 2059: 1994: 1677:

Now that we know you do not use X let me remind you of what Draketo has said already: "

1395: 1215: 829: 752: 719: 475: 409: 82: 3840: 3514: 3465: 3325: 3297: 2566: 2536: 2493: 2453: 1572: 1451: 1309: 1117: 987: 895: 641: 561: 471: 450: 3997: 3518: 3469: 3429: 3383: 3012: 2540: 2479:

Knowledge (XXG) cares about open source software, even if the world at large does not

2414: 2379: 2364: 2338: 2172: 1937: 1756: 1663: 1657: 1614: 1488: 1482: 767:

hasn't been particularly changed, and I see no changes that violate policy. In fact,

387: 381: 2465:- those that are "worthy of notice" and have been "noticed" to a significant degree 2195: 1924: 3962: 3763: 3709: 3648: 3634: 3592: 3545: 3496: 3444: 3401: 3337: 3324:. Well, unless you suggest that we swiftly ratify this double standard absurdity, 3261: 3220: 3176: 3134: 3087: 3031: 2976: 2949: 2900: 2859: 2759: 2075:

There's plenty of sources, the software seems established, it passed a Keep within

1946: 1930: 1770: 1410: 1363: 1327: 1290: 1273: 1249: 1197: 1179: 1143: 1121: 1094: 1077: 1053: 996: 973: 965: 923: 870: 793: 736: 687: 673: 633: 620: 591: 565: 520: 454: 355:

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

200: 188: 156: 273: 3212:

as it clearly quotes from older revisions of dwm's Knowledge (XXG) article. See

1915: 312: 135:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

3844: 3791: 3736: 2781: 2745: 2611: 1851: 1812: 1717: 2741: 3677: 3613: 3574: 3243: 3106: 3069:. They don't make content decisions nor do they arbitrate content disputes. -- 2725: 2434: 2413:

If we are determined to get rid of it, I think this is the best alternative.

2241: 1888: 1820: 1360:- looks like this was in the 9 2008 release (from the source link at the top) 869:

also speaks german (as noted on his userpage) he can easily doublecheck that.

3571:

http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00022300&soc=SPE

1114:

significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject

1990: 1840:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Gene_Poole/genepooleisevil

1391: 1211: 949: 2825: 1818: 899: 892: 3609: 3000: 1814: 1809:. As per the previous AFD, some references, third party discussion, etc: 1157: 905: 3424: 2557:

I'm not very active on Knowledge (XXG), so what you are saying about the

2511: 2360: 957: 953: 649: 243: 3573:. Also, let us quickly move to recreate software notability guidelines. 2169: 1836:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Gene_Poole/attackrants

404:

for ~4 hours. I am reversing the closure to allow continued discussion.

2899:

simply doesn't qualify. No attempt at wikilawyering gets around that.--

1844:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Gene_Poole/genepooleisevil

1073:

that Tobias was genuinely exalted by wmii (which by the way isn't dwm).

969: 945: 686:

And threatening me with blocking on my talk page won't change my view.

470:: A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video doesn't make this article pass 3240:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software

1533:, because it's a component of dwm. Prod was removed as controversial. 3733:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software

2758:

OSS isn't special. It gets the same treatment as any other subject.--

1713: 1173:. Sure, it isn't Firefox, but that's the case with KDE, too, and the 862: 2920:

source is not independent of the subject regardless who published it

1554:

and it doesn't look like any of them are left. Wouldn't pass GNG.

3861: 1943: 1934: 2927: 1530: 1166: 852: 648:

were formulated. I'd forgotten I'd even written it until I found

2119:

This is an important piece of the history of window management.

1911:

Hacker News? This discussion is mentioned all over the Internet:

3978:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3321: 1816: 1509: 1504: 1361: 1139: 3693:"possibly non-notable" is not a convincing argument to delete 3836: 3008: 3004: 2558: 2504: 1865: 1170: 1162: 788:

I don't think that it should affect the article, how it looks

235: 98: 93: 25: 3003:, this could be expanded to include the extra information at 2637: 3086:

A deletion discussion isn't a place to "pay some respect".--

922:“active on the website” points to the mailing list archive. 129:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 2824:

Surveying this AfD, the prior one, and the article, I find

1679:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD

1267:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD

3282:

that was rejected by roughly half of the colonists? ;-) --

3201: 2829: 2194:

I just noticed that the new issue of Arch Linux Magazine

1823: 1712:. For all of the better-articulated reasons given above. 1454:, and undue canvassing as I said at the last discussion. 1357: 1356:

And here is one more link we already had in the sources:

763:

I'm sorry, but I take a lot of issue with this view. The

556:

Does that mean, we should also delete the article on the

119:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

3213: 3007:

with the one or two good citations there and then have

2633: 1827: 891:: "I'm sorry but I don't feel that the article in FreeX 888: 768: 269: 265: 261: 792:. The only thing which matters is the article itself. 331: 3647:

No, not even a little bit. Its completely trivial.--

3217:

significant coverage in reliable independent sources

2510:

For what it's worth, because Knowledge (XXG) is the

3631:

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention

2632:The project is actively developed/maintained (see: 2171:I think the FSF is a credible source, personally. 1750:" as it doesn't really move the discussion forward. 1025: 345: 1729:. Article is sourced and is sufficiently notable. 1312:, please post them here so we can consider them. — 447:significant coverage by reliable secondary sources 2926:meets GNG after we give it pity points for being 2006:. Article is sourced and is sufficiently notable. 883:One doesn't need to speak German to see that the 422:) This AfD is being canvassed for via email. See 406:This AfD now closes at 22:45 UTC on March 7, 2010 68:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3988:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3219:. My earlier recommendation stands unchanged. — 3495:Sorry, could you show me where that happened?-- 2830:a paragraph in this Bulgarian PC World roundup 2497:fact on Knowledge (XXG) is itself verifiable. 2208:To install dmenu, use the `dmenu` package in . 942:“Tobias Walkowiak (provided various feedback)” 1052:For me, the conflict of interest is clear. — 889:This was noted by Rankiri in the previous AfD 514:list of Software-related deletion discussions 149:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 8: 3001:at the list of tiling window managers for X 2744:page if OSS might need special treatmenmt. 769:the sum of all of the changes since the AfD 508: 226:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) 123:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 3280:United States Declaration of Independence 449:necessary to satisfy the requirements of 3869: 2798:, but apparently didn't get ratified. -- 1887:- This discussion has been mentioned on 1156:And because you call the article in the 986:And I also disagree with some things in 640:was written long before the policies on 512:: This debate has been included in the 143:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 3610:http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/62218 3320:in all deletion discussions related to 2079:- this smacks of delete warring to me. 1575:. Nothing more really needed to say.— 218: 45:For an explanation of the process, see 408:. I will determine consensus then. -- 3108:. We have articles on Pokemons... -- 901:and who is also listed as one of the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2913:Right, like we regularly go out and 2776:special. Plenty of other things get 1550:Pull any sourcing that doesn't meet 2772:Perhaps OSS, or software at least, 2201:System Menu: dmenu (Visit Homepage) 217: 3238:, for the reasons I enumerated at 940:is listed under “other people” as 424:WP:AN/I#New meatpuppet recruitment 24: 1404:Translation by Google Translate: 3860:. Comparing dwm usage data from 3464:as the minimum requirements for 3200:. The trivial 9/2008 mention in 2796:that's been proposed in the past 102: 41:deletion review on 2010 March 13 29: 2304:This debate is being canvassed 47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3676:for comments and improvement. 3591:Which sources would that be?-- 3065:You misunderstand the role of 1140:dwm article in the Gentoo Wiki 849:From the previous discussion: 491:per lack of reliable sources. 434: 427: 1: 1578: 726:21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 548:20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 529:19:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 503:19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 495:, his otters and a clue-bat • 484:19:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 463:19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 393:18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 374:15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC) 139:on the part of others and to 2492:It is my understanding that 1583: 1529:. I've separately nominated 2261:This article forms another 2238:"'Comment to closing admin: 2223:) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2058:Typical wikipedia faggotry 2041:Enough good reasons above. 1834:and should be deleted; see 4020: 2881:was absolutely correct. -- 2638:http://www.distrowatch.com 855:article … appears to pass 362:Knowledge (XXG):Notability 88:17:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 3971:17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 3853:04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 3826:00:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 3804:23:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 3772:01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 3745:20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 3718:08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 3704:01:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 3686:21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3657:08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 3643:23:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3622:23:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3601:23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3583:21:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3554:08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 3536:00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC) 3505:23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3487:20:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3453:17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3434:16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3410:15:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3392:13:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3375:00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3346:00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3292:00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 3270:23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3252:23:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3229:13:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3185:13:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3161:12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3143:12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3118:10:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3096:12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3082:08:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3061:07:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3040:12:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 3021:06:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2985:06:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2958:05:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 2943:12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2909:12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2894:06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2868:06:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2853:05:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2811:10:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2790:09:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2768:06:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2754:04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 2734:23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2708:22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2686:22:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2667:22:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2646:23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2623:22:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2601:21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2579:22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2549:21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2525:21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2443:20:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2423:20:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2409:20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2388:20:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2369:19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2347:20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2332:19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2295:18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2276:18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2251:18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2233:19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2181:18:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2140:18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2112:18:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2095:18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2068:17:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2051:17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2034:17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 2016:17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1999:16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1978:17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1955:16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1903:16:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1878:16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1860:16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1800:15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1779:15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1765:15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1734:14:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1722:14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1699:13:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 1669:14:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1646:13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1623:12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 1606:23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1589:20:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1564:19:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1543:19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1522:18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1494:21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1473:08:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1435:14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1419:14:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1400:14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1386:12:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1372:12:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1350:12:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1336:12:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1322:10:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1299:09:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1282:08:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1258:08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1220:14:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1206:12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1188:09:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1152:15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1130:14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1103:14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1086:14:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1062:13:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1005:10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 982:09:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 932:09:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 917:08:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 879:08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 842:03:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 802:09:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 782:10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 759:21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 745:14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 696:15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC) 682:09:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 667:21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 629:15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 600:14:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 574:14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 558:ASIC_programming_language 437:07:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 415:04:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 221:Articles for deletion/Dwm 77:. My full analysis is at 4004:Pages at deletion review 3981:Please do not modify it. 3940:matchbox-window-manager 3612:doesn't cut it for you? 2595:⨂!!!! CHOO CHOOOOO !!!!⨂ 2461:"Knowledge (XXG) covers 61:Please do not modify it. 3126:You might want to read 2590:I abstain from voting. 400:This AfD was closed as 181:; accounts blocked for 151:single-purpose accounts 121:policies and guidelines 3208:) can't be considered 2471: 2399:'s history section. -- 1828:Psychonaut’s user page 822:Dynamic window manager 216:AfDs for this article: 2467:by the world at large 2459: 2456:(bold emphasis mine): 2397:tiling window manager 2159:few or no other edits 1116:necessary to satisfy 818:Tiling window manager 2634:http://suckless.org/ 2501:Open source software 2161:outside this topic. 3128:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 2242:off-wiki commentary 402:Speedy no consensus 133:by counting votes. 112:not a majority vote 3468:have been met. ··· 3278:You mean like the 3202:Bulgarian PC world 2826:this FreeX article 1848:assumes good faith 79:User:Flyguy649/Dwm 73:The result was 3960: 3959: 3807: 3790:comment added by 3534: 3485: 3384:Michel Vuijlsteke 2778:special treatment 2715: 2598: 2533:roleplaying games 2162: 2143: 2126:comment added by 2100:Delete with a but 1667: 1540: 1519: 1492: 636:, the article on 531: 517: 391: 214: 213: 210: 137:assume good faith 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 4011: 3983: 3870: 3820: 3806: 3784: 3701: 3672:I have reopened 3532:Talk to Nihonjoe 3528: 3524: 3521: 3483:Talk to Nihonjoe 3479: 3475: 3472: 3371: 3365: 3076: 3011:redirect there. 2937: 2888: 2847: 2805: 2710: 2661: 2592: 2328: 2323: 2318: 2248: 2240:Please note the 2144: 2142: 2120: 2090: 2085: 1661: 1585: 1580: 1538: 1517: 1486: 1469: 1464: 1459: 1306:reliable sources 938:Tobias Walkowiak 650:Soxred93's Tools 646:reliable sources 518: 494: 493:Ten Pound Hammer 435: 433: 385: 350: 349: 335: 287: 277: 259: 208: 196: 180: 164: 145: 115:, but instead a 106: 99: 63: 33: 32: 26: 4019: 4018: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4010: 4009: 4008: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3986:deletion review 3979: 3862:Debian's popcon 3818: 3785: 3699: 3526: 3519: 3477: 3470: 3369: 3363: 3074: 2935: 2886: 2845: 2803: 2659: 2596: 2326: 2321: 2316: 2246: 2121: 2088: 2083: 1976: 1901: 1467: 1462: 1457: 1158:2006 12 edition 492: 292: 283: 250: 234: 231: 198: 186: 170: 154: 141:sign your posts 97: 66:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4017: 4015: 4007: 4006: 3996: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3974: 3973: 3958: 3957: 3954: 3950: 3949: 3946: 3942: 3941: 3938: 3934: 3933: 3930: 3926: 3925: 3922: 3918: 3917: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3898: 3894: 3893: 3890: 3886: 3885: 3882: 3878: 3877: 3874: 3866: 3865: 3855: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3748: 3747: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3700:Steven Walling 3688: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3645: 3625: 3624: 3604: 3603: 3586: 3585: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3539: 3538: 3508: 3507: 3490: 3489: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3437: 3436: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3395: 3394: 3382:. Per above. 3377: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3284:Stephan Schulz 3273: 3272: 3255: 3254: 3232: 3231: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3164: 3163: 3153:Stephan Schulz 3146: 3145: 3121: 3120: 3110:Stephan Schulz 3100: 3099: 3098: 3084: 3067:administrators 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3024: 3023: 2988: 2987: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2871: 2870: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2737: 2736: 2717: 2716: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2648: 2626: 2625: 2604: 2603: 2594: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2552: 2551: 2490: 2489: 2482: 2463:notable topics 2458: 2457: 2446: 2445: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2390: 2372: 2371: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2298: 2297: 2279: 2278: 2255: 2254: 2247:Steven Walling 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2184: 2183: 2163: 2114: 2097: 2070: 2053: 2036: 2018: 2001: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1970: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1906: 1905: 1895: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1803: 1802: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1752: 1751: 1743: 1742: 1736: 1724: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1672: 1671: 1649: 1648: 1631: 1625: 1608: 1598:Misterdiscreet 1591: 1566: 1545: 1524: 1496: 1475: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1284: 1260: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1208: 1191: 1190: 1175:founder of KDE 1154: 1133: 1132: 1106: 1105: 1089: 1088: 1074: 1069: 1068: 1050: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 984: 934: 844: 830:User:Blueboy96 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 785: 784: 748: 747: 729: 728: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 615: 614: 603: 602: 577: 576: 551: 550: 532: 497: 496: 489:Pile-On Delete 486: 465: 377: 376: 353: 352: 289: 285:AfD statistics 230: 229: 228: 223: 215: 212: 211: 107: 96: 91: 71: 70: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4016: 4005: 4002: 4001: 3999: 3989: 3987: 3982: 3976: 3975: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3955: 3952: 3951: 3947: 3944: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3931: 3928: 3927: 3923: 3920: 3919: 3915: 3912: 3911: 3907: 3904: 3903: 3899: 3896: 3895: 3891: 3888: 3887: 3883: 3880: 3879: 3875: 3872: 3871: 3868: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3856: 3854: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3831: 3827: 3824: 3821: 3817: 3812: 3809: 3808: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3782: 3779: 3778: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3702: 3696: 3692: 3689: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3668: 3667: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3565: 3564: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3522: 3516: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3473: 3467: 3463: 3460: 3459: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3426: 3420: 3417: 3416: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3381: 3378: 3376: 3372: 3366: 3360: 3357: 3356: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3334:WP:OTHERSTUFF 3331: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3234: 3233: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3199: 3196: 3195: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3171: 3169:According to 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3129: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3104: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3083: 3080: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3047: 3046: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2997: 2993: 2990: 2989: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2971: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2941: 2938: 2934: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2916: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2892: 2889: 2885: 2880: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2869: 2865: 2861: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2820: 2812: 2809: 2806: 2802: 2797: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2722: 2719: 2718: 2714: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2693: 2692: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2665: 2662: 2658: 2653: 2649: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2628: 2627: 2624: 2621: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2606: 2605: 2602: 2599: 2597: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2513: 2508: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2495: 2487: 2483: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2470: 2468: 2464: 2455: 2451: 2448: 2447: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2391: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2374: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2357: 2354: 2353: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2324: 2319: 2312: 2310: 2307: 2303: 2300: 2299: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2281: 2280: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2264: 2260: 2257: 2256: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2243: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225:Chief sequoya 2222: 2218: 2217:Chief sequoya 2207: 2203: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2189: 2186: 2185: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2167: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2118: 2115: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2098: 2096: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2086: 2078: 2077:the last week 2074: 2071: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2054: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2019: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2002: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1979: 1974: 1969: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1945:and so on. — 1944: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1904: 1899: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1819: 1817: 1815: 1813: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1737: 1735: 1732: 1731:ElBenevolente 1728: 1725: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1665: 1660: 1659: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1629: 1626: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1592: 1590: 1587: 1586: 1581: 1574: 1570: 1567: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1546: 1544: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1525: 1523: 1520: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1500: 1497: 1495: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1479: 1476: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1465: 1460: 1453: 1449: 1448:Strong Delete 1446: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1308:establishing 1307: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1261: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1246: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1155: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1091: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1026: 1024: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1006: 1002: 998: 993: 989: 985: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 933: 929: 925: 920: 919: 918: 914: 910: 906: 904: 900: 897: 893: 890: 886: 882: 881: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 858: 854: 848: 845: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 814: 811: 810: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 786: 783: 779: 775: 770: 766: 762: 761: 760: 757: 754: 750: 749: 746: 742: 738: 733: 732: 731: 730: 727: 724: 721: 716: 713: 712: 697: 693: 689: 685: 684: 683: 679: 675: 670: 669: 668: 664: 660: 656: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 632: 631: 630: 626: 622: 617: 616: 611: 607: 606: 605: 604: 601: 597: 593: 589: 588:WP:OTHERSTUFF 585: 581: 580: 579: 578: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 554: 553: 552: 549: 545: 541: 536: 533: 530: 526: 522: 515: 511: 507: 506: 505: 504: 500: 490: 487: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 466: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 441: 440: 439: 438: 432: 431: 425: 421: 417: 416: 413: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 394: 389: 384: 383: 375: 371: 367: 363: 358: 357: 356: 348: 344: 341: 338: 334: 330: 326: 323: 320: 317: 314: 311: 308: 305: 302: 298: 295: 294:Find sources: 290: 286: 281: 275: 271: 267: 263: 258: 254: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 232: 227: 224: 222: 219: 206: 202: 194: 190: 184: 178: 174: 168: 162: 158: 152: 148: 144: 142: 138: 132: 128: 127: 122: 118: 114: 113: 108: 105: 101: 100: 95: 92: 90: 89: 86: 84: 80: 76: 69: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3980: 3977: 3857: 3832: 3815: 3811:WP:OTHERCRAP 3780: 3724: 3694: 3690: 3669: 3630: 3566: 3461: 3423: 3418: 3379: 3358: 3235: 3216: 3197: 3102: 3071: 3048: 2995: 2991: 2972: 2932: 2923: 2919: 2914: 2883: 2879:speedy close 2878: 2842: 2821: 2800: 2773: 2720: 2711: 2694: 2656: 2652:Speedy Close 2651: 2650: 2629: 2615: 2607: 2591: 2587: 2509: 2499: 2491: 2485: 2484:Decide that 2478: 2477:Decide that 2472: 2466: 2462: 2460: 2449: 2429: 2392: 2375: 2355: 2314: 2305: 2301: 2282: 2268:Infoaddicted 2262: 2258: 2239: 2215: 2187: 2165: 2116: 2099: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2055: 2043:Shadow demon 2038: 2020: 2008:HardwareLust 2003: 1986: 1933:(Draketo)), 1931:User:ArneBab 1884: 1806: 1787: 1747: 1738: 1726: 1709: 1686: 1682: 1656: 1633: 1628:Strong Keep: 1627: 1610: 1593: 1576: 1568: 1556:Nefariousski 1547: 1526: 1502: 1498: 1481: 1477: 1455: 1447: 1405: 1286: 1270: 1262: 1240: 1113: 1044: 1022: 991: 966:Gentoo Linux 941: 937: 902: 884: 850: 846: 825: 812: 790:in your mind 789: 764: 714: 534: 509: 501: 498: 488: 467: 446: 442: 428: 419: 418: 405: 401: 397: 396: 380: 378: 354: 342: 336: 328: 321: 315: 309: 303: 293: 204: 192: 183:sockpuppetry 176: 165:; suspected 160: 146: 134: 130: 124: 116: 110: 75:No consensus 74: 72: 60: 57: 36: 3786:—Preceding 3781:Strong Keep 3206:translation 3049:Strong keep 2924:just barely 2700:Kim Bruning 2678:Kim Bruning 2401:Two Bananas 2259:Strong Keep 2166:Strong-Keep 2157:) has made 2122:—Preceding 2117:Strong-Keep 2056:Strong-Keep 2026:Ben Kidwell 1889:Hacker News 1832:attack page 1499:Weak delete 582:Please see 319:free images 3916:ratpoison 3884:dwm-tools 3839:abides by 3466:notability 3330:WP:IKNOWIT 3318:WP:CANVASS 2742:Notability 2695:Comment(s) 2287:Sbierwagen 1870:Psychonaut 1792:CoderGnome 1691:LuckyStarr 1638:AlexTingle 1503:smerge to 1427:Psychonaut 1378:Psychonaut 1342:Psychonaut 1314:Psychonaut 1310:notability 1245:Psychonaut 1165:alongside 909:Psychonaut 867:Psychonaut 834:Roguelazer 824:articles. 774:Roguelazer 659:Psychonaut 642:notability 610:Psychonaut 540:Psychonaut 366:Psychonaut 117:discussion 3364:JBsupreme 3336:votes. — 2992:Weak Keep 2822:Weak Keep 2244:on this. 2104:RobertMel 2060:Antic-Hay 950:Mercurial 735:article. 521:• Gene93k 476:Joe Chill 410:Flyguy649 173:canvassed 167:canvassed 126:consensus 83:Flyguy649 3998:Category 3876:Package 3800:contribs 3788:unsigned 3013:SQGibbon 2996:Redirect 2858:above.-- 2838:reliable 2563:nerdrage 2541:Resistor 2512:de facto 2415:Resistor 2380:Resistor 2339:Resistor 2173:Sprhodes 2155:contribs 2147:Nefastus 2136:contribs 2128:Nefastus 2124:unsigned 2089:11001001 2084:Overlord 1824:PC World 1757:nycmstar 1615:Delirium 1358:pc world 958:LimeWire 954:GNU Hurd 655:WP:POINT 280:View log 205:username 199:{{subst: 193:username 187:{{subst: 177:username 171:{{subst: 161:username 155:{{subst: 3963:Ive-Ive 3948:larswm 3892:xmonad 3833:Comment 3764:Rankiri 3725:Comment 3710:Crossmr 3670:Comment 3649:Crossmr 3635:Rankiri 3593:Crossmr 3546:Crossmr 3497:Crossmr 3445:Rankiri 3402:Crossmr 3338:Rankiri 3262:Crossmr 3221:Rankiri 3198:Comment 3177:Rankiri 3135:Crossmr 3088:Crossmr 3032:Crossmr 2977:Crossmr 2950:Crossmr 2901:Crossmr 2860:Crossmr 2834:the GNG 2760:Crossmr 2588:Abstain 2450:Comment 2302:Comment 1947:Rankiri 1885:Comment 1771:Draketo 1527:Comment 1411:Rankiri 1364:Draketo 1328:Draketo 1291:Draketo 1287:Comment 1274:Draketo 1263:Comment 1250:Draketo 1241:Comment 1198:Rankiri 1180:Draketo 1144:Draketo 1122:Rankiri 1095:Draketo 1078:Draketo 1054:Rankiri 997:Draketo 974:Draketo 970:Freenet 946:Firefox 924:Draketo 871:Draketo 863:archive 794:Draketo 765:article 753:Blueboy 737:Draketo 720:Blueboy 688:Draketo 674:Draketo 634:Draketo 621:Draketo 592:Rankiri 584:WP:ATTP 566:Draketo 455:Rankiri 325:WP refs 313:scholar 253:protect 248:history 169:users: 3953:15153 3945:15010 3845:I80and 3823:(talk) 3792:Nat682 3760:WP:IAR 3737:Samboy 3729:WP:IAR 3359:DELETE 3314:WP:SPA 3310:WP:COI 3079:(talk) 3053:drange 2973:Delete 2940:(talk) 2891:(talk) 2850:(talk) 2808:(talk) 2794:Well, 2782:cojoco 2746:cojoco 2664:(talk) 2263:useful 2198:text: 1852:Samboy 1842:, and 1830:is an 1594:Delete 1571:Fails 1569:Delete 1548:Delete 1478:Delete 962:Python 715:Delete 535:Delete 468:Delete 443:Delete 430:Jeremy 297:Google 257:delete 3937:8800 3929:6597 3924:wmii 3921:6450 3913:5898 3905:5744 3897:5724 3889:4857 3881:3688 3873:Rank 3819:cobra 3816:Cyber 3756:WP:RS 3678:Unomi 3614:Unomi 3575:Unomi 3430:talk 3306:WP:RS 3302:WP:OR 3244:Dandv 3242:. -- 3210:WP:RS 3075:cobra 3072:Cyber 2936:cobra 2933:Cyber 2928:FLOSS 2915:prove 2887:cobra 2884:Cyber 2846:cobra 2843:Cyber 2804:cobra 2801:Cyber 2726:zootm 2660:cobra 2657:Cyber 2608:Keep. 2435:Canar 2395:into 2393:Merge 2327:Space 2306:again 1973:βǃʘʘɱ 1898:βǃʘʘɱ 1664:Help! 1584:dαlus 1552:WP:RS 1531:dmenu 1489:Help! 1468:Space 1167:Gnome 1067:idea! 885:freeX 857:WP:RS 853:freeX 851:“the 388:Help! 340:JSTOR 301:books 274:views 266:watch 262:links 147:Note: 81:. -- 16:< 3967:talk 3956:pwm 3932:ion 3908:e17 3900:dwm 3858:Keep 3849:talk 3841:WP:N 3796:talk 3768:talk 3762:. — 3741:talk 3714:talk 3691:Keep 3682:talk 3653:talk 3639:talk 3618:talk 3597:talk 3579:talk 3567:Keep 3550:talk 3515:WP:N 3501:talk 3462:Keep 3449:talk 3419:Keep 3406:talk 3388:talk 3380:Keep 3370:talk 3342:talk 3332:and 3326:WP:N 3322:FOSS 3316:and 3298:WP:N 3288:talk 3266:talk 3248:talk 3236:Keep 3225:talk 3181:talk 3175:. — 3157:talk 3139:talk 3114:talk 3103:Keep 3092:talk 3057:talk 3036:talk 3030:0.-- 3017:talk 2981:talk 2954:talk 2930:. -- 2905:talk 2864:talk 2840:. -- 2828:and 2786:talk 2764:talk 2750:talk 2730:talk 2721:Keep 2704:talk 2682:talk 2642:talk 2630:Keep 2612:siro 2575:talk 2567:WP:N 2545:talk 2537:WP:N 2521:talk 2494:WP:N 2454:WP:N 2439:talk 2430:Keep 2419:talk 2405:talk 2384:talk 2376:Keep 2365:talk 2356:Keep 2343:talk 2322:From 2317:Them 2291:talk 2283:Keep 2272:talk 2229:talk 2221:talk 2188:Keep 2177:talk 2151:talk 2132:talk 2108:talk 2073:Keep 2064:talk 2047:talk 2039:Keep 2030:talk 2021:Keep 2012:talk 2004:Keep 1995:talk 1991:Impi 1987:Keep 1951:talk 1929:(by 1874:talk 1856:talk 1807:Keep 1796:talk 1788:Keep 1775:talk 1761:talk 1739:Keep 1727:Keep 1718:talk 1710:Keep 1695:talk 1689:. -- 1687:Keep 1642:talk 1634:Keep 1619:talk 1611:Keep 1602:talk 1596:Dwm 1573:WP:N 1560:talk 1539:ping 1535:Pcap 1518:ping 1514:Pcap 1510:wmii 1505:wmii 1463:From 1458:Them 1452:WP:N 1450:per 1431:talk 1415:talk 1409:. — 1396:talk 1392:AVRS 1382:talk 1368:talk 1346:talk 1332:talk 1318:talk 1295:talk 1278:talk 1254:talk 1216:talk 1212:AVRS 1202:talk 1184:talk 1169:and 1148:talk 1126:talk 1120:. — 1118:WP:N 1099:talk 1082:talk 1058:talk 1001:talk 988:WP:N 978:talk 936:And 928:talk 913:talk 907:." — 896:WP:N 875:talk 847:Keep 838:talk 826:Also 820:and 813:Keep 798:talk 778:talk 741:talk 692:talk 678:talk 663:talk 644:and 638:ASIC 625:talk 596:talk 590:. — 586:and 570:talk 562:WP:N 544:talk 525:talk 510:Note 480:talk 472:WP:N 459:talk 453:. — 451:WP:N 420:Note 398:Note 370:talk 333:FENS 307:news 270:logs 244:talk 240:edit 3837:dwm 3695:any 3520:日本穣 3471:日本穣 3425:DGG 3009:dwm 3005:dwm 2713:--> 2571:Max 2559:RPG 2517:Max 2505:OSS 2469:." 2361:hif 1968:Lәo 1893:Lәo 1866:dwm 1850:. 1658:Guy 1501:or 1483:Guy 1171:KDE 1163:Dwm 992:you 426:. — 382:Guy 347:TWL 282:• 278:– ( 236:Dwm 201:csp 197:or 189:csm 157:spa 131:not 94:Dwm 4000:: 3969:) 3851:) 3813:-- 3802:) 3798:• 3770:) 3743:) 3735:. 3716:) 3684:) 3655:) 3641:) 3620:) 3599:) 3581:) 3552:) 3530:· 3527:投稿 3523:· 3503:) 3481:· 3478:投稿 3474:· 3451:) 3432:) 3408:) 3390:) 3373:) 3344:) 3312:, 3308:, 3304:, 3300:, 3290:) 3268:) 3250:) 3227:) 3183:) 3159:) 3141:) 3116:) 3094:) 3059:) 3038:) 3019:) 2983:) 2956:) 2907:) 2866:) 2788:) 2780:. 2774:is 2766:) 2752:) 2732:) 2706:) 2684:) 2676:-- 2644:) 2577:) 2547:) 2539:. 2523:) 2441:) 2421:) 2407:) 2386:) 2367:) 2345:) 2313:. 2308:. 2293:) 2274:) 2231:) 2179:) 2153:• 2145:— 2138:) 2134:• 2110:) 2066:) 2049:) 2032:) 2014:) 1997:) 1953:) 1942:, 1936:, 1926:, 1923:, 1920:, 1917:, 1914:, 1891:. 1876:) 1858:) 1838:, 1798:) 1777:) 1763:) 1720:) 1697:) 1681:: 1644:) 1621:) 1604:) 1579:Dæ 1562:) 1433:) 1417:) 1398:) 1384:) 1370:) 1348:) 1334:) 1320:) 1297:) 1280:) 1269:: 1256:) 1218:) 1204:) 1186:) 1150:) 1128:) 1101:) 1084:) 1060:) 1003:) 980:) 968:, 964:, 960:, 956:, 952:, 948:, 930:) 915:) 877:) 840:) 800:) 780:) 756:96 743:) 723:96 694:) 680:) 665:) 627:) 598:) 572:) 564:. 546:) 527:) 516:. 482:) 474:. 461:) 372:) 364:. 327:) 272:| 268:| 264:| 260:| 255:| 251:| 246:| 242:| 207:}} 195:}} 185:: 179:}} 163:}} 153:: 43:. 3965:( 3961:— 3847:( 3794:( 3766:( 3739:( 3712:( 3680:( 3651:( 3637:( 3616:( 3595:( 3577:( 3548:( 3499:( 3447:( 3428:( 3404:( 3386:( 3367:( 3340:( 3286:( 3264:( 3246:( 3223:( 3204:( 3179:( 3155:( 3137:( 3112:( 3090:( 3055:( 3034:( 3015:( 2994:/ 2979:( 2952:( 2918:" 2903:( 2862:( 2784:( 2762:( 2748:( 2728:( 2702:( 2680:( 2620:o 2616:χ 2573:( 2543:( 2519:( 2437:( 2417:( 2403:( 2382:( 2363:( 2341:( 2289:( 2270:( 2227:( 2219:( 2175:( 2149:( 2130:( 2106:( 2062:( 2045:( 2028:( 2010:( 1993:( 1975:) 1971:( 1949:( 1939:, 1900:) 1896:( 1872:( 1854:( 1794:( 1773:( 1759:( 1716:( 1714:U 1693:( 1666:) 1662:( 1640:( 1617:( 1600:( 1558:( 1491:) 1487:( 1429:( 1413:( 1394:( 1380:( 1366:( 1344:( 1330:( 1316:( 1293:( 1276:( 1252:( 1214:( 1200:( 1182:( 1146:( 1124:( 1097:( 1080:( 1056:( 1027:: 999:( 976:( 926:( 911:( 873:( 859:” 836:( 796:( 776:( 772:— 739:( 690:( 676:( 661:( 623:( 594:( 568:( 542:( 538:— 523:( 519:— 478:( 457:( 390:) 386:( 368:( 351:) 343:· 337:· 329:· 322:· 316:· 310:· 304:· 299:( 291:( 288:) 276:) 238:( 209:. 203:| 191:| 175:| 159:| 49:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index