Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commo (Terminal Emulator) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Commo_(Terminal_Emulator)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commo (Terminal Emulator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. I've never heard of it, nor has anyone on the Google News archive. I'm pretty sure it isn't notable. JBsupreme (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it seemed pretty popular back in the dial up BBS days, that people kept talking about it as an alternative to other things. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Powermacros was a popular package, for the very popular BBS Door Tradewars 2002 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Popularity isn't a factor. We're writing a verifiable encyclopaedia here. Whether things are popular or unpopular is irrelevant. Things have to be properly documented parts of the corpus of human knowledge. So please show where this subject has been documented by people independent of its creator(s). Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This Google News archive search finds a couple of potential sources at pay sites, but it doesn't look like there's very substantial coverage there. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also pages 409–410 of ISBN 9780078816468. Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but compress a little. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The book source found by Uncle G pushes this over the notability barrier. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2009 (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.