Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mpop (e-mail client)

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mpop (e-mail client)

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

Article about an open source program that does not include any independent, published sources so is not verifiable and does not show how this software is notable. Prod was contested. so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this article because mpop is included in common distributions (Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu, ...). It is also used for backing up Gmail account. I have not find a policy specific to open source software : what point do I miss with this article ? What reference will be the best (if any) ? Hezzel (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hezzel (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no (as far as I am aware) specific Wikipedia guidelines for open source software, so the article needs to meet the general guidelines for notability. The three links you give above are all to blogs, so they do not meet the standards laid out in the notability guidelines. Sparthorse (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Please see this article : I don't understand why this article meet the guidelines while that don't meet the same guidelines. On a side note, if you give me some time for review my contribution, I will not contest deletion tomorrow if I was unable to achieve requirement in the mean time; I just want to understant the guidelines for notability for the next time. Hezzel (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hezzel, I'm just jumping in to let you know that saying "other stuff exists" is not valid as far as articles for deletion goes. There's actually a policy name for it, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Odds are the other article doesn't have any true notability and should be deleted as well, but at this point in time it isn't the article up for discussion. We just have to find reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS) to prove notability for mpop. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment At the risk of being a pedant, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline -Rushyo ^Talk 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the other article in question for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blogs are unreliable sources. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as author appears solely reliant on sources that are not WP:Reliable -Rushyo ^Talk 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2011 (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.