Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getmail


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Getmail

 * – ( View AfD View log )

open source software with no independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * keep - looks like there is a lot of independent sources, e.g. 1 and 2 and a lot more if you press the google books at the top of this page. Christian75 (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * #2 is seven sentences and #1 looks like a paragraph at most. Not significant coverage. --Pnm (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete/Major Work. This article does not site and 3rd party sources, and reads like an ad (the vast majority of the text is simply comparisons to fetchmail).  If kept, it would need major work (however it may be possible to find the needed sources to make this a better article, so if editors are willing to do so, it could be a keep, but in the current state, delete)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millermk90 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per, , , , , , and other books. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * #4 is seven sentences (same source as Christan75's #2). #1 and #5 include mentions of getmail but do not cover it, or even explain what it is. #2, #3, and #6 are about entirely different things called GetMail – this article is about a Python script. --Pnm (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N per lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Seven sentences in one, a (paragraph?) mention in the appendix of a second – not enough. --Pnm (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2011 (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.