Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia MM


 * 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. A number of users have expressed an interest in improving the article. If they don't do so soon, it can be relisted Waggers (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Columbia MM

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete nn software Mayalld (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I wouldn't be surprised if this software has historical signifigance, but for now I don't see it. If such signifigance is discovered, the page can easily be recreated. -Verdatum (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - MM is somewhat obscure, but is notable if only for the ways in which it influenced Pine. I have added some notes to the page to that effect. Tim Pierce (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did Columbia MM really influence Pine, or was that its predecessor, TOPS-20 MM, a different program written by Mark Crispin who later went on to write Pine? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Similar reasons to Tim's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.2.168 (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mainly for historical value, to document how email clients didn't start out as Netscape, Outlook. Articles like this show (or with some editing and a nav-box, would) the gradual evolution of clients. Since this was co-written by Mark Crispin I'd like to link the articles. I added a ref to rfc 1203 which mentions Columbia MM. I don't think WP:RS is a problem and this article can be built upon and wf'd to help document the history of email. Faradayplank (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.