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 keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mutter (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only press releases and passing mentions in sources and literature. Declined PROD. wumbolo ^^^ 09:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This article fails all tests for notability and is clearly promotional in nature. Lovelylinda1980 (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lovelylinda1980 can you reason which "tests" and why? When you say promotional, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Widefox; talk 00:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – this is the compositor for Wayland and GNOME, and is used by several other desktop environments. Passes WP:GNG per the sources in the article (LWN, Linux Magazine, Phoronix), as well as plenty others available online. Bradv 00:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – It is one of the most famous Window Managers! how someone can say it does not have notability?! Editor-1 (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's 2 RS in the article, so passes WP:GNG, including "Mutter: a window manager for GNOME 3" "Mutter: Window Manager in GNOME's Future" , more available e.g. [1] . The nom is factually incorrect about current sources being only passing mentions - were the sources even looked at, let alone was WP:BEFORE even done? Widefox; talk 18:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand what's factually incorrect about not using WP:CRYSTAL sources and very narrowly focused articles about minor software updates for WP:GNG. wumbolo ^^^ 21:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor has pointed out, WP:CRYSTAL isn't what you think it is. Widefox; talk 00:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "another editor", and I know exactly what WP:CRYSTAL is. (Perhaps you don't?) Just because one paragraph in a source is not WP:CRYSTAL, does not mean that the rest of the source isn't WP:CRYSTAL. wumbolo ^^^ 08:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect on both, see [2]. This is WP:LISTEN Widefox; talk 13:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. The notability guidelines point to WP:CRYSTAL and describe its context. You have a wrong opinion of what those guidelines say and I suggest reading WP:CRYSTAL (and you don't have to if you don't want to). wumbolo ^^^ 14:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been corrected by two of us. See WP:CONSENSUS. What part of "No" from the other editor isn't clear enough? Widefox; talk 15:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't "corrected". What part of "respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" from WP:CONSENSUS isn't clear enough? wumbolo ^^^ 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If "No" [3] isn't clear enough, you're not LISTENing, so please stop bludgeoning my !vote. Widefox; talk 23:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I want to "listen" to a poor argument, not based in any policy? wumbolo ^^^ 20:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you listen to WP:CONSENSUS and not WP:REHASH regardless WP:BLUDGEONING at all these AfDs? Because the correct place to discuss this disruption is at WP:ANI#User:Wumbolo not here. Widefox; talk 11:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment just to clarify the potentially misleading nom - this is free open source software (and a core aspect of it - an updated architecture/layer to one of the first open source collaborative software projects). Some context may help. Widefox; talk 00:18, 17 September 2018 (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.