Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AfterLogic XMail Server

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfterLogic XMail Server

Was up for PROD as a non-notable product. DePRODed without comment. No RS references. I am not seeing RS coverage in the first few pages of Google searching, just primary sources and download sites. DanielRigal (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom as the editor who added the {{prod}} nomination, subsequently removed by article creator. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my search has the same result as nom's - I don't see notability. The author's talk page discloses an SPA account adding material about AfterLogic Corporation (deleted as spam), AfterLogic WebMail (also at AfD) and this product. User has been given a level 3 warning, and has not created any new article since. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 16 March 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 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable product also probably breaches WP:COI. Acebulf (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —94.196.158.212 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I get 13.700 Ghits for "AfterLogic XMail Server". Overwhelming majority are independent, and I see no reason to assume that the info on the page should not be factually correct, it is certainly verifiable by tech buffs. With the many hits, I assume that the product has such a penetration in the Linux (or whatever) community that a Wikipedia article is warrented. I see no promotion, advertising or spam. Maybe it's a WP:SPA, maybe the creator has WP:COI - and that should definitely have been disclosed by the editor - but I cannot see that this has influenced, skewed or tainted the article, factual as it is. I cannot see that own interest have been advanced at the detriment of the interests of Wikipedia. I'm likely a minority around here, but tag with refimprove and keep Power.corrupts (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The overwhelming majority of those ghits are certainly not independent - they are download sites. If you exclude the word "download" you get a more realistic 70 hits (i.e. 99.5% of the 13,700 are eliminated) and after looking through the list I can't find one independent reliable source amongst them. There's also nothing from Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 25 March 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.