Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratpoison
Those are examples of reliable, secondary sources.  The notability guidelines do not call for "in depth" coverage (do you mean "exclusive" when you say this?), but only "significant" coverage.  This may be up for debate, but I find those & the other links on google books and google news to constitute significant coverage that certainly have enough facts to fully reference this stub.  If people don't agree with keeping this article, perhaps the several window managers that you've recently listed in AfD (that you've pointed out have |reliable sources) should be merged to a single article
— User:Karnesky, 20:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)