Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musca (window manager)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:07, 2 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 15:07, 2 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Already two delete votes, so the second relist was not necessary JForget 01:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Musca (window manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find significant independent coverage for this software. Deleted as prod but restored as contested without adding any sources. Pcap ping 15:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find in Google is unreliable sites and download sites. I found zero sources in Google News. I found zero sources in Google Books. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify: The proposed deletion process foresees the restoration if requested if reqiested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion as in this case. It is not a requirement that the restoring admin adds sources as the nomination seems to imply, and the article creator did not have much time till the Afd.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean to imply that; "without adding any sources" was referring to the editor that contested the prod, not the admin. Pcap ping 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear enough. I just wasn't sure whether i made clear that it was a requested restoration. Waiting after restoration to see if sources are added is a good idea, though. In this case they do not yet seem to exist, so delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean to imply that; "without adding any sources" was referring to the editor that contested the prod, not the admin. Pcap ping 04:46, 1 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 00:37, 7 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 00:35, 14 February 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.