Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDaemon (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 06:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MDaemon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Software does not appear to meet WP:ORGDEPTH requirements for significant coverage — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – various reviews over time are being added. --Zac67 (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Speedy Keep - I don't understand why this AfD was created. It's not even legacy software, take a look at this. -- DexterPointy (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - several of the sources add little for this discussion, but the newly added reviews ref #5 and #6 seem sufficiently detailed and independent to establish some notability for a short stand-alone article. Also, the article is vastly improved without the excessive self-sourced PR fluff and product details from the original version. Such unencyclopedic information should not be re-added regardless of this discussion. GermanJoe (talk) 22:47, 23 July 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.