Deletion of Dwm (2nd nomination)

Comment: per , and undue canvassing as I said at the last discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video doesn't make this article pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: From the previous discussion: ''“the freeX article … appears to pass ”''. If noone disagrees to that, we can stop this discussion right now and mark dwm as notable. And yes, I speak German (being from Germany) and freeX 06/2007 (http://www.cul.de/freexarchiv.html archive) has a whole article on dwm. No side mention or aggregate, but a whole article on dwm only. And as
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: As I said on the previous discussion, there is simply no evidence that the subject has received ''significant coverage by reliable secondary sources'' necessary to satisfy the requirements of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The trivial 9/2008 mention in http://pcworld.bg/7248 Bulgarian PC world (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpcworld.bg%2F7248&sl=auto&tl=en translation) can't be considered  as it clearly quotes from older revisions of dwm's Wikipedia article. See  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dwm&oldid=180214820 or any other 2007-2008 revision for proof. None of the other mentioned references seem to provide ''significant coverage in reliable independent sources''. My earlier recommendation stands unchanged
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Pull any sourcing that doesn't meet  and it doesn't look like any of them are left.  Wouldn't pass GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: I love dwm, but that's entirely irrelevant here.  As evidenced by this whole fiasco, it's hard to argue that dwm abides by ; while I would say there is a reasonable amount of mindshare around it, sadly very little of it is actually verifiable.  This raises interesting questions to me about the validity of the notability policy, but this is definitely not the forum for discussion of them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Fails .  Nothing more really needed to say
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The notability guidelines are biased against open source software.  The reason is very simple, and I believe it is stated clearly in the "nutshell" section of  (bold emphasis mine
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Surveying this AfD, the prior one, and the article, I find http://www.cul.de/data/freex62007inh.pdf this FreeX article and http://pcworld.bg/7248 a paragraph in this Bulgarian PC World roundup, which with a dash of leeway due to OSS having few published sources generally, can arguably satisfy |the GNG. Everything else seems to be either user-generated or a blog or a primary source, and thus not |reliable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)