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
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.
ISSN0888-8507. 2/3 page article
Brenesal, Barry (November 2004). "Poco Systems PocoMail 3.1". PC Today. Vol. 2, no. 11. Sandhills Publishing Company. p. 98.
ISSN1040-6484. 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.
ISSN0888-8507. 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.
ISSN1093-4170. 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.
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
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.
ISSN0888-8507. 2/3 page article
Brenesal, Barry (November 2004). "Poco Systems PocoMail 3.1". PC Today. Vol. 2, no. 11. Sandhills Publishing Company. p. 98.
ISSN1040-6484. 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.
ISSN0888-8507. 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.
ISSN1093-4170. 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.