Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost in the Mail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Ghost in the Mail[edit]
Not notable, a not-release-ready simple smtp client, only 147 google hits. --fvw* 08:34, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
- Delete, But an article about this application is fine if it gains notability, and maturity. An alpha version isn't notable. Inter 10:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not notable, plus a first-person statement there about writer's belief. (This is fixed now) Delete; agree with Inter on future inclusion conditions. Stombs 11:07, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
- KellyCoinGuy Don't Delete Maybe I'm being selfish, but I'm just trying to organize my thoughts on what's out there in email clients using Wikipedia to make my own observations as well as request the thoughts of the software's authors. Clearly this is not a major player in email clients, and quite possibly it doesn't deserve it's own article, but I'm trying to get something done here in terms of comparing various email clients, even the ones in early development. The author is interested in this article even though I didn't meet him prior to writing this article. However, I don't want to break any specific Wikipedia rules. Would it be more acceptable if I created a Miscellaneous Email Clients article and put in my comments about all of the currently non-notable email clients there? I would be happy to fix the opinion statement, but I think that if it doesn't result in a huge bloat in articles there could be a miscellaneous catch all article for anything that isn't yet notable. Would there be a problem with that? I'm trying for completeness, rather than just noteworthiness. I think it is noteworthy that there are a lot of development efforts going on in this area now :-) I looked in the VfD page, and I couldn't find anything on being "notable" could someone please point me to the text on that subject?
- You might consider making a "List of email clients" and putting comments about less significant ones in that. (Excuse me not trying to explain what 'notable' means, the definition seems to be different for everyone. Try importance instead.) I vote merge/redirect to List of email clients or some similar article if created. Kappa 11:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that gitmail is not particularly "notable", however, I'll be darned if I can find anything policy-wise on Wikipedia that would reject an article soley on that basis. The importance article is not official policy, just suggested policy. And it's quite subjective as what's important to one person is not to another. Is it really "important" to have articles on every single minor character in Harry Potter? I mean Minor Ravenclaws is really on the verge of absolute irrelevance even if you are a major Harry Potter fan! Of course, it does give precidence for a list of unimportant things. I'd really like to see a logical argument that the article should be deleted based upon concrete Wikipedia policy, not just a few opinions. Otherwise, anarchy reigns. If we can't come to a consensus to leave the article as is, I would propose that we create a Minor Email Clients or some such thing that can be divided off when things do become major, and make this a redirect page to there. I've seen some very compelling arguments that Wikipedia should be as comprehensive as possible. After all, when you are pushing half a million articles, it gets harder to cherry pick good articles that don't exist yet :-)
- You might consider making a "List of email clients" and putting comments about less significant ones in that. (Excuse me not trying to explain what 'notable' means, the definition seems to be different for everyone. Try importance instead.) I vote merge/redirect to List of email clients or some similar article if created. Kappa 11:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Del. Authors stated intentions amount to misuse of WP. --Jerzy(t) 05:31, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
- Delete. It's trivial to forge the name and return address with practically any email client. Non-notable probable-vaporware. dbenbenn | talk 23:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.