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. Consensus was to keep, only argument for deletion was made by nominator. (
non-admin closure)
Onel5969TT me 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Half page review in NetworkWorld (July 28, 1997, p. 54), less than half page review in Computer Power User (January 2005, p. 73), multiple page review in PC Mag (won Shareware awards 1996; September 10, 1996, pp. 260, 261, 264, 266). There are also short news in other magazines. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I will try to improve the article, if I find the time.
Pavlor (
talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – This is a leading Usenet newsgroup reader program for Windows. It has a long history and it's widely covered in the computer press which of course has diminished over several years together with the decline of Usenet and NNTP itself. Deleting articles because of decreasing relevance is unencyclopedic –
WP:RECENTISM works both ways. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 09:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Pavlor and Michael Bednarek have said it better than I could. Not just used for Usenet. Back before the rise of Twitter etc, there were privately run newsgroup communities based on NNTP, and my impression was that Forte Agent was the client that almost everyone used.
Gpc62 (
talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
FockeWulf FW 190: Notability of the article subject is not based only on references used in the article. Please, check sources I provided above...
Pavlor (
talk) 05:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Pavlor: My concern is the notability and references along with maintaining a neutral point of view.
Google searches provided very little sources which could be considered reliable, some books also made some trivial mentions too.
Adding reliable references would address the issues on why the article should be deleted.
FockeWulf FW 190 (
talk) 18:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - for once a piece of software that, back in the day, even I have heard of (not that that's a criterion for retention). I think it's relevant to the history of
Usenet, so was surprised there was no mention there. That said, it has been a challenge to find evidence to show that
WP:NSOFTWARE has been met. There are recommendations of Forte Agent as a good alternative to
Outlook Express on
Google Scholar, suggesting this old software probably meets the guideline's description of "software with significant historical or technical importance (e.g. Visicalc) are notable even if they are no longer in widespread use or distribution." By contrast, I am unconvinced that the article on its makers,
Forté Internet Software, which has been unreferenced for the last 5 years, merits the same benefit of the doubt. (@
FockeWulf FW 190: - please sign all your comments so we know who is making contributions, please).
Nick Moyes (
talk) 09:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Another PC Mag review (in cover story about newsgroup readers, this time commercial version): October 8, 1996, pp. 164-165.
Pavlor (
talk) 12:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Another source, half page article in Maximum PC magazine (part of bigger article about "favorite applications and utilities of 2002"; January 2003, p. 58).
Pavlor (
talk) 05:50, 6 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.
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. Consensus was to keep, only argument for deletion was made by nominator. (
non-admin closure)
Onel5969TT me 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Half page review in NetworkWorld (July 28, 1997, p. 54), less than half page review in Computer Power User (January 2005, p. 73), multiple page review in PC Mag (won Shareware awards 1996; September 10, 1996, pp. 260, 261, 264, 266). There are also short news in other magazines. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. I will try to improve the article, if I find the time.
Pavlor (
talk) 09:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – This is a leading Usenet newsgroup reader program for Windows. It has a long history and it's widely covered in the computer press which of course has diminished over several years together with the decline of Usenet and NNTP itself. Deleting articles because of decreasing relevance is unencyclopedic –
WP:RECENTISM works both ways. --
Michael Bednarek (
talk) 09:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Pavlor and Michael Bednarek have said it better than I could. Not just used for Usenet. Back before the rise of Twitter etc, there were privately run newsgroup communities based on NNTP, and my impression was that Forte Agent was the client that almost everyone used.
Gpc62 (
talk) 06:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
FockeWulf FW 190: Notability of the article subject is not based only on references used in the article. Please, check sources I provided above...
Pavlor (
talk) 05:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Pavlor: My concern is the notability and references along with maintaining a neutral point of view.
Google searches provided very little sources which could be considered reliable, some books also made some trivial mentions too.
Adding reliable references would address the issues on why the article should be deleted.
FockeWulf FW 190 (
talk) 18:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - for once a piece of software that, back in the day, even I have heard of (not that that's a criterion for retention). I think it's relevant to the history of
Usenet, so was surprised there was no mention there. That said, it has been a challenge to find evidence to show that
WP:NSOFTWARE has been met. There are recommendations of Forte Agent as a good alternative to
Outlook Express on
Google Scholar, suggesting this old software probably meets the guideline's description of "software with significant historical or technical importance (e.g. Visicalc) are notable even if they are no longer in widespread use or distribution." By contrast, I am unconvinced that the article on its makers,
Forté Internet Software, which has been unreferenced for the last 5 years, merits the same benefit of the doubt. (@
FockeWulf FW 190: - please sign all your comments so we know who is making contributions, please).
Nick Moyes (
talk) 09:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Another PC Mag review (in cover story about newsgroup readers, this time commercial version): October 8, 1996, pp. 164-165.
Pavlor (
talk) 12:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Another source, half page article in Maximum PC magazine (part of bigger article about "favorite applications and utilities of 2002"; January 2003, p. 58).
Pavlor (
talk) 05:50, 6 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.