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. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QVWM[edit]

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)).

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

Aparently non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ofcourse this project hasn't many activity(last changes in sources in 2007 year), but it uses by some people today. But this not a main reason to keep this article. Main reason - historical notability. Today all knows this WM as "best win95-like WM". You can read about history of project on this sites: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. Third-party pages of qvwm? Ok: [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]]. Enough? Ofcourse they too old, but their so many. iorlas (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Thanks for going to the trouble of finding those references. However, most of them appear to be personal blogs and wikis, and software repositories, so I don't think they satisfy our requirements that articles be supported with reliable sources. The Linux Planet article seems acceptable, though. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This project has a great historical interest. Se the links from previous post. Gkrellm (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — Gkrellm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak keep. The LinuxPlanet story is a real article back in 2001 when they operated as a magazine. Also has some coverage in this 2001 book, but it's hard to tell how much (only snippet view, but clear it's not just in a list or table). Pcap ping 06:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppetry Notice. From http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222 (translation): Article about dwm in wikipedia set for removal . . . Proposed Strategy for Action: After registration MUST write at least a couple of lines on his personal profile. To do this, click on the name of its Nick at upper right. It is necessary that nickname in the discussion are not highlighted in red, a sign of very fresh registrant. This adds weight to arguments . . . PS die removal also hangs over Wmii, QVWM, and many other opensource-software.

If you're a linux.org.ru user about to "add weight to the argument" using the above suggestion, please note that what you're about to do is considered highly inappropriate. More importantly, you should know that this issue will not be settled by a simple majority vote. If no reliable sources for this software are found, it really doesn't matter If the color of your nickname is red or blue. See WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment about color. But please tell me what does your link have common with meatpuppetry? Please read the translation carefully, see quote: "We must earnestly and energetically present arguments in favor of the weight of the article and the popularity of dwm. Carefully appends at the bottom of the comment." Please keep in mind that people here write their own opinions and they are not joint by family or subordination relationships. So I insist that you delete Meatpuppetry Notice or present due arguments. I wait for response. Mclaudt (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and WP:CANVASS as suggested by Rankiri? It seems those answer your questions pretty clearly. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. And you didn't present any prof of Meatpuppetry so I insist that you delete this notice. This is wide resonance (cause deleting a dwm suggests the incompetence of editors) and this is not Meatpuppetry cause each new editor presents his own proofs and links, as noticed and cited above. Mclaudt (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you? Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. When you, the author that comment, asked people to vote keep in order to "put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts, and to defend this strategically important area.", you violated that policy. — Rankiri (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Wikipedia and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. So you should be glad of increasing of specialists in that theme. Please read Notability of free open source software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaudt (talk • contribs) 05:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As with a few other AFDs below, this discussion is re-listed due to single-purpose accounts involved with possible WP:MEAT. --JForget 00:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am sympathetic to a group of experts recommending the preservation of something of historical significance that lacks current significance. However, no references have been offered to establish historic significance. These references need not be on the internet, they can be written publications, etc. However, we don't have any for this software package. Racepacket (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Strong keep~~ ^{[duplicate !vote from User:Mclaudt a.k.a. User:Gkrellm]} Did you follow presented link? Please remember that WP:IMNOTCAPABLETOCLICKLINKS is not an argument for deletion. story, this 2001 book. Also AGF. Mclaudt (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) — Mclaudt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note) The above user is attempting to canvass this AfD via email. See WP:AN/I#New meatpuppet recruitment. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The LinuxWorld article is fine but insufficient to establish notability, the article itself doesn't claim notability. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability in the article, insufficient coverage in reliable sources, and the meatpuppetry/canvassing attempts are pathetic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - has some references in books: [8] --h2g2bob (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pcap. —Roguelazer (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage even make a clear case for passing GNG. Nefariousski (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" QVWM is not only a big part of history, but is used in the enterprise on some server platforms. Also, is mentioned in some books (can't find it) Linuxworld article should be enough to keep it "notable" 67.187.97.43 (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC) — 67.187.97.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep You cant delete QVWM! Its an opensource WM, it never outdates and is used on lightweight systems. Even if the software itself was developed long time ago, its not an argument as such to remove it! Its running, doing its job, people have interest in it. Shinobiteno (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC) — Shinobiteno (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails wp:gng. Click23 (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2010 (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.