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 no consensus. Unfortunately it seems all the work has gone into determining notability after the second re-list. There have been sources presented with claims of in-depth coverage, but analysis of those sources outside the presentor is lacking. Therefore I find no consensus. There should therefore be no time limit for renomination, although I would recommend a careful examination of the presented sources and a detailed explanation as to why they do not convey notability before doing so. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qvwm[edit]

Qvwm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I can find no significant, in depth coverage to indicate this was a notable piece of software. It existed, but it appears it never reached notability. 2017 No-Consensus Batch AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bspwm StarM 15:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. EpicPupper 18:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It actually sounds like the kind of Window manager I would want for Linux, but that isn't the criteria. I did some searching, and found several mentions in articles and in several books (foreign languages, but that is fine). The problem is, I couldn't find any significant coverage, just passing mentions. Many Unix/Linux programs are notable by themselves, like Apache, Samba, bash, etc but this doesn't appear to be one of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find much that would justify this article's existence. --Nemov (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems obvious that this and all of the others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bspwm should be merged, because most of the one-paragraph articles can actually be read consecutively to form a narrative, especially the ones on softwares developed by the same single person. X window manager#Virtual window managers seems to be lacking a break-out article unlike the other types. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If it had to come down to keep vs delete, I'd go with keep on the basis of the Linux Planet and Linux Format coverage and the discussion of the WM in Linux System Administration: A user's guide. I prefer the idea of merging to an article that has coverage of several of the WMs of marginal significance as proposed by Uncle G more, though. Would X window manager#Virtual window managers be the best target? Isn't it also a stacking window manager? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per sources: Proffitt, Brian (2001-01-02), Linux Format (2). 2009-03-10 [First published in 2000]. and book: Linux System Administration: A User's Guide Marcel Gagné (2002), 9780201719345 pp153,4. sufficient for notability. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a bit more information, since those aren't books on my shelf. I believe you that they are mentioned, but how extensive is the coverage? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It doesn't seem to me like the sources were evaluated and found wanting, since two of them were dead and there were no archives provided. I have found archive URLs for two of them (TuxRadar and LinuxPlanet), which both seem completely fine to me. I've also added another source that talks at least a little bit about qvwm. jp×g 22:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to stacking window manager. The coverage in independent sources appears to be too slight to hope that we will ever have a good self-sufficient article here. Since the WM allows overlapping windows and predates compositing WMs on X windows (see Compositing window manager#History), it must be a stacking window manager, so I think that is a reasonable target for the redirect. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case the suggested target article is not structured correctly for the merge and a merge here would be a bad choice. If Qvwm were a tiling window manager a suitable merge target would exist. You seem to has used WP:OR to determine it must be a stacking window manager. AfD is a poor place for merge discussions and implementation of poor merges, generally this might be for WikiProject level. Therefore I need to oppose this good faith merge !vote. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right: while I think my inference is sound, using it to determine the link target would be WP:SYNTH. I retract this !vote. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2021 (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.