Deletion of Xmonad (3rd nomination)

Comment: clearly meets . The solution is to add more sources, not delete the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: For an article to remain on Wikipedia, it needs to meet the Notability criteria - and this is well-defined and can't be overwritten by "my friends in the sector know what it is" per . Notability is well-defined and requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The sources already in the article are definitely numerous, but I don't think sheer volume of references on the web are enough to establish notability. A lot of the sources already cited fail to contribute the notability case, e.g. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/mint-18-review-just-works-linux-doesnt-get-any-better-than-this/2/ This article in Ars Technica is cited but contains a single mention of the topic in the context of "this piece of software is not XMonad," and https://opensource.com/article/17/7/top-4-reasons-i-use-dwm-linux-window-manager this article at opensource.com is referenced in much the same way. OSNews is now simply a content aggregator and not a reliable source. Many of the sources come from the man page, the github repo or the mouth of the creators and this fails the independence criteria. The only source used that tallies with the 'reliable sources' noted at  is https://www.computerworld.com/article/2471553/linux/100941-10-amazing-Linux-desktop-environments-youve-probably-never-seen.html ComputerWorld, but this only contains a single mention of it as part of a top 10 list, which falls dangerously on the border of 'significant coverage'. The two independent academic articles are the closest to good sources establishing notability for me. https://web.archive.org/web/20180912170235/https://www.cs.york.ac.uk/ftpdir/reports/2008/YCST/14/YCST-2008-14.pdf Neil Mitchell's article does mention XMonad, but it uses this as a sample use case of the 'Catch' algorithm and does not report on it in any depth - it gets a namecheck and description more for context than any real coverage on the issue. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/50323/1/matter.pdf The National Science Review article is the only source that ticks all the requirements for sources. One source to establish notability (with many more to bulk out details) is close to the line of notability, but as a relative outsider to this topic, don't tip it over the edge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRV||WP:CSTS)