Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlphaCom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 10:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AlphaCom
While I'm sure it's a fine terminal emulator, nothing in the article indicates why the topic is encyclopedic. Googling gives mixed results (note that there are many products and companies named "AlphaCom", so when you try this, don't just trust the raw count). Looking at ZDNet downloads for ssh clients (as just one metric), AlphaCom has 470 downloads, compared to tens of thousands for other SSH programs, such as SecureCRT. AlphaCom fares better on download.com, garnering 150,000 downloads in 8 months[1], but that's compared to just under 600,000 downloads in 5 days for SecureCRT[2]. Unless there's some particular reason AlphaCom is more notable than your average bear, it doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. Nandesuka 16:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. With probably some tens of thousands of users, as per the download figures, this is of interest to sufficiently many people. Up until a few days ago (when the policy proposal was shortened), the editors of WP:SOFTWARE seemed to agree on a 5,000 user threshold. Sandstein 18:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - way above the notability threshold; the article is descriptive, concise, and source-supported. --James S. 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, verfiable, real information. For great justice. 00:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm surprised people want to keep this, I don't see what there is here for an encyclopaedia. There's nothing special about this progam and few people use it. The nominator's arguments are very convincing to me. — ciphergoth 08:02, 6 April 2006 (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.
