Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twin (windowing system)

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. closing, clearly lacking sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twin (windowing system)

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

This is non-notable and unsourced software. I have declined to use PROD on this article because it contains one external source. One source does not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability in this case is very subjective, and hard to evaluate. It is better to err on the side of a bit of additional data than to just delete it. 173.15.213.186 (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of sources is easy to evaluate. That completely fails our verification policy. Miami33139 (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are 3 external links, and two of them are authoritative and very verifiable. An article in a similar condition (notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but without copious amounts of external sources but those that are present are easily verified and authoritative) is the article on the Syllable operating system. Michael B. Trausch • Talk to me 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly feeble keep. (!voting neutral seemed too lame in an AfD) The only WP:SECONDARY source is that Brave GNU World issue, which is tethering on self-published, although the column was republished in print (see Georg C. F. Greve). There's virtually no other commentary about twin anywhere, except this blog. Pcap ping 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the sources don't seem to hold up to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:13, 26 December 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.