>>28
You find irrelevant results-> thus subject is irrelevant.
The burden of proof is not on me. I mentioned my perception of the Google results as a funny curiosity, not trying to prove anything. I do not have to prove that dwm is not noteworthy, you have to prove that it is.
You are moving in the right direction. In fact, that list of sites would have probably been enough to "prove notability" in formal Wikipedia terms if freetards (oh, that's an insult, that means I'm wrong, let's pretend I've said "Freedom Loving Individuals") stopped Sticking it to the Man and for a minute and took time to read the WP:Notability. Because, you see, Wikipedia actually allows completely useless articles if they are well-sourced, e.g. if enough Freedom Loving Individuals have written external articles about dwm without, you know, actually using it. Or maybe not, I'm not going to waste my time checking how many of your links are genuine.
But since it turns out that we're "discussing why "notability" is a failed policy", the question still holds: how many users does dwm have, i.e. how notable it is by the common sense criterion?