Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pocomail

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pocomail

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

Not notable and contains little if any encyclopedic content. Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 18:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to construct an article. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: created in 1999, still listed as a best email client in 2017. Not only does that demonstrate notability, but enduring notability. [1] Toddst1 (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some coverage in published magazines:

Canter, Sheryl (September 19, 2000). "The PC Magazine Shareware Awards, E-mail, News readers, Chat, Poco, Version 2.02". PC Magazine. Vol. 19, no. 16. Ziff Davis. pp. 102, 104. ISSN 0888-8507. 2/3 page article
Brenesal, Barry (November 2004). "Poco Systems PocoMail 3.1". PC Today. Vol. 2, no. 11. Sandhills Publishing Company. p. 98. ISSN 1040-6484. Full page review

Online sources seem to be scarce, I found several mentions and one short pcmag.com review: [2] There was also an article on pcworld.com, but isn´t available anymore (no archived version found). Pavlor (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While these are not official policies they provide good points: WP:OLDAGE, WP:MASK, WP:COATRACK. This article might be somewhat old, but it is not notable. This article also attempts to mask the part of it not being notable by containing very trivial facts in some areas. It also attempts to use context from what it might provide as an email client to make it seem more notable. Many items have received passing mentions in various books, magazines, but this does not provide notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another two RS:

Glitman, Russell (February 17, 2004). "E-mail clients, PocoMail 3.03". PC Magazine. Vol. 23, no. 3. Ziff Davis. p. 71. ISSN 0888-8507. Half page review in article about E-mail clients
Steyer Phelps, Anne (November 2007). "Email Clients, PocoMail 4.5". SmartComputing. Vol. 18, no. 11. Sandhills Publishing Company. p. 22. ISSN 1093-4170. Half page review in article about E-mail clients Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of reliable sources to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More reliable sources are needed to fulfill notability.Tart (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 24 October 2017 (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.