Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larswm

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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larswm

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

Apparently non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The most in-depth coverage I could find [1] is in Brave GNU World (this has been translated and republished in various magazines Linux Magazine editions [2] [3]). Another section (4 paragraphs) is in this round-up archive of the defunct LinuxWorld.com, and there's another paragraph about it here (original) by the same author. It was apparently included in a round-up in Linux Format issue 65, but unluckily pdf issues before 66 can't even be purchased anymore, they've completely disappeared from their site. I could find passing mentions in other WP:RS, [4] [5]. All mentions in google books are in a list of similar WMs, usually in books about Knoppix. Pcap ping 19:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Pcap has shown there was a lot artciles about larswm. Isn't that enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.35.27.153 (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Pcap --Cybercobra (talk) 00:42, 26 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.