Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xterm

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xterm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Declined PROD. My concern was that this software is not notable and has only "how-to" mentions in tech website articles. Other mentions don't strike me as significant and some are not independent. wumbolo ^^^ 14:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Totally inadequate WP:BEFORE. References to two books on article prior to this nomination. I could add ISBN:978-3-8362-1780-4 p329 if I had to plus many more. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 14:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the first 3 Google Books search results:
    1. Mac OS X for Unix Geeks (Leopard): Demistifying the Geekier Side of Mac OS X by Rich Rosen, Ernest E. Rothman, and Brian Jepson
    2. The Complete Idiot's Guide to UNIX by Bill Wagner
    3. X Users Guide Motif R5: Motif Edition by Tim O'Reilly and Valerie Quercia

  — Newslinger talk 14:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Lengthy manuals don't count as significant coverage. If they did, then we would bias our coverage towards complicated software with difficult and/or lengthy instructions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, WP:SIGCOV doesn't require lengthy coverage, it just requires coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". The rule of thumb used by WikiProject Articles for Creation is "at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more". Less complicated software programs would also meet this guideline if they were notable. — Newslinger talk 14:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Newslinger: did you read my comment? wumbolo ^^^ 10:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The primary way of interacting with computers in the early days of GUI window systems. Not many recent sources, as it is no longer widely used, but an important part of computing history. Plenty of hits on Google scholar. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above "keep" !votes. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was the standard X terminal in the early days of X windows and was ubiquitous to the point it became a generic name for any X terminal application, e.g., "Open up an xterm and...". A simple WP:BEFORE search shows many GScholar and GBook hits, especially from the 90s, of which some exemplars are noted above. Easily passes notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of RS to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously!!!. scope_creep (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – ubiquitous software, with actual books written about it. WP:SNOW Bradv 16:17, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep Ridiculous nomination, This is a very popular piece of software. Govvy (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2018 (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.