Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConEmu


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

ConEmu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software. Fails WP:PRODUCT. Possible COI issue; see WP:COIN John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article does not actually fail WP:PRODUCT, because it doesn't depend on the notability of any company (there is no company behind it). The last paragraph on WP:PRODUCT clearly states:


 * "'Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.'"


 * As far as notability goes, you can find several articles about it in online magazines. We can debate how many articles are "enough", but that is always going to be subjective. The software is notable for being the only actively maintained replacement for the native Windows terminal window, that is still capable of handling native Windows console programs.


 * Finally, the potential COI issues seem fairly insubstantial, as outlined in my remarks on WP:COIN, so no point repeating them here. Grnch (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, there is some discussion about the deletion on the article's talk page. It does have some noise from meatpuppets, but there is also a genuine discussion there about improving the article. Grnch (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you look at List of terminal emulators ConEmu is the only active one (except Win32 console) that is not only a SSH/serial port client and many have articles not better than the ConEmu one. Instead of removing ConEmu and laving the reader with outdated information on outdated software only, there has to be a other way. If the ConEmu article itself is not important enough for Wikipedia, maybe all this articles about terminal emulators should be deleted and merged into one big "Terminal Emulators for Microsoft Windows" article?
 * Think about the experience of a reader if this article is deleted. They search for a terminal emulator for Windows and find only information about outdated end-of-life products. They would believe there is no current software for this task. This is not the experience we want for them, is it?
 * ConEmu was also featured in one of Germany's biggest computer magazines (printed onto dead trees), which is how I first found this software. While it is not a good source for the English Article, it shows the importance of the product. (And if I ever find enough time in-between my job and private life, creating a German entry on Wikipedia fr ConEmu is on my to-do list) Anybody (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. --Abatishchev (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Much offsite discussion is happening on GitHub, among other places. That said, the problem with notability is that most "popular" sources that have talked about ConEmu are not English; they are Russian, German, etc. or talk about Cmder which includes ConEmu. The second problem is that ConEmu is a relatively young software and lacks historical significance. Wikipedia is not a catalog; WP lists software but seldom makes whole articles about it unless they are really that significant. Perhaps this article could find a better home in the Russian Wikipedia where the policy enforcement is a little different and since ConEmu already has a Russian userbase/website. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I forgot to mention that ConEmu could end up as a permastub even if kept, as explaining ConEmu's "unique" features hardly meets Wikipedia's format for verifying facts. Longbyte1 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I speculate that wikipedia considers the subject important as this page List of terminal emulators lists very many such programs (usually for UNIX). This is possibly the second most popular such tool on windows so the article seems important.90.192.167.83 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment If the best sources are nonEnglish there is no reason why they should not be used; it will helpto provide a translation of a key sentence, but even that isn't essential. It will surely be moehelpful than the various blogs now used for the article.  DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  09:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe this meets notability due to magazine coverage, such as PC Advisor mentioning the software. For a list of news articles containing ConEmu, check Google News. Gaming4JC (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There are articles from what seem to be good sources, such as and . I don't think the COI issues are relevant as to whether ConEmu is notable. I do not believe sources in other languages would be needed to improve this article, but even so sources in other languages are certainly allowed when determining notability, at WP:NOTE it says: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language". I agree with the above that it doesn't fail WP:PRODUCT as it stands on its own. I would be interested in another editors opinion on sources for software like this though, only tech magazines and blogs will mention IT/dev software such as this and it would be hard to find particularly long or interesting sources.  Boccobrock • T • C  23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.