Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EM Client (2nd nomination)

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. J04n(talk page) 16:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

eM Client

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

Non-notable software. No significant coverage. Most edits are by single issue editors who most likely are involved in the produce or sale of the software. Article has been nominated and deleted twice in the past. 1 2 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete (agree on all points) TEDickey (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as the one who 'PRODed this article original. mabdul 23:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To adjust my feeling for relevance I looked at a few software articles. I can't understand how Agora (web browser) is considered more relevant than eM Client - even when I look at the sources. Grepfruit (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is it G4 able? mabdul 23:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep: While the article might not be sourced sufficiently, I can't agree on the non-notability and non-significance.
- Here's a list of a few articles found by a quick search either dedicated to or prominently mentioning the software:
- eM Client seems more notable than many entries listed in Comparison of email clients. So perhaps incorporating the links above into the article would help? Grepfruit (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - The first PC World review is a good source. The other ones are entries in a list of several which provides minor coverage. In aggregate, these aren't sufficient to pass notability although a couple of more good sources would push it over for me. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a few more sources directly about the program & added at the bottom of the list.Grepfruit (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - lehsys.com is somebody's blog so not a reliable source. The others don't offer any significant coverage so I didn't really check inot the sources reliableness. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok. Added more sources in Czech & something in German - these are relevant secondary sources and they deal with the program in detail. Grepfruit (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Just a hint for any future AFD. Rather than taking new sources at then of a previous comment, posting them in a new comment makes it easier for other editors (liKe me) to identify and review the new soucrcing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand. Thanks for the guidance.Grepfruit (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment Relisted to encourage further discussion about the sources listed above. —Darkwind (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the additional reviews of the the software in Czech technology press are sufficient to establish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- while I agree that the usefullnes of various pieces ofsoftware featured in magazines like pcworld, pcmag etc. is of varying level, the mere fact that their editors have decided to list this application in some of their "best sw for XYZ" pages passes the notability threshold for me. So in spite of my client being clearly superior :), I recommend keeping it. Jkt (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep full reviews in PC World and similar publications prove notability. Of course, they should have been added to the article in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seemingly case that a thorough WP:BEFORE shows notability, while to credit the nominator, the article by itself did not. The article needs a major overhaul with the proper reliable sources added, but notability is notability the rest at this point are surmountable problems. Mkdw ^talk 07:04, 22 April 2013 (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.