The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is some likely sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here, and the votes alone would be a no consensus leaning keep. However, in this case, the arguments are not sufficient, and the delete reasons have been given more weight. Therefore I have no issues closing this as delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scrotwm[edit]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Nascent software project. Article was up for PROD, which was contested. Subject matter does not meet WP:NOTABILITY; project has just begun development, is not widely used, creator is not independent of subject and there are no supporting tertiary sources for it. §FreeRangeFrog 19:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator per reasons given above. Template:Window managers was also modified in conjunction with the creation of this page and will have to be modified as well if the AfD holds. §FreeRangeFrog 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nascent software it may be, but judging by the name, the contents of this article could well be bollocks. pablo_hablo. 20:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do not judge the the article or the software only by its name - the software exists, it runs and it's definitely not vaporware. The code is available to anybody who bothers to download it.--89.212.42.176 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC) — 89.212.42.176 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
More serious comment There seem to be copyvio issues:[1], first para will need rewriting. pablo_hablo. 22:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't see how that is a violation because I wrote it and obviously am surrendering the rights but sure I'll rewrite the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco peereboom (talk • contribs) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — Marco peereboom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I'm a happy user of scrotwm, I sent a few patches too. You have all the evidence that this piece of software exists. Please remove that header from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.104.3 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) — 91.199.104.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep i'm writing some documentation for it. it's also already been accepted into the openbsd ports system. if that doesn't legitmize it as real, then articles on firefox and openoffice should go away too Azmarco (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Azmarco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as non-notable software. Keep voters seem inexperienced with notability guidelines: verifiability is not enough. Nothing against recreation if it becomes notable, so maybe userfy if desired.Yobmod (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yet another time-wasting, spurious deletion request. The software exists, is in use by a number of people, and has been covered on online news sites like OSNews. Stop wasting everyone's time proposing everything for deletion and improve wikipedia by contributing content. --David Chisnall (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This software exist and is usable, anyone with a compiler could verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benoitc (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC) — Benoitc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.