Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GyazMail


 * 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  09:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

GyazMail

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Article seems to be only original research WP:OR. Also contains little if any encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I prodded this article a few months ago for being a "non-notable application" but the article's creator claimed in the edit summary when removing the prod, "GyazMail is the only classical native-GUI alternative to Apple Mail that is still actively supportet and developed". That is not enough to prove that something is notable. A WP:BEFORE search only found the sources and, but those sources are not enough to indicate WP:NOTABILITY as the second source mentioned only trivially mentions GyazMail. The first source is not significant coverage of the subject so the subject is not notable. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 16:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge. While this one-programmer project has not to-date had the same impact as the late Phil Katz's PKZIP, the clock is still ticking for GyazMail. Also, author Goichi Hirakawa, and his 2003-2017 (14 years) accomplishment compares favorably with that of Steve Dorner's Eudora's 1988-2006 range (18 years). Pi314m (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I can't see the point why the article about GyazMail should be deleted. We have also an article about Trojitá and Mulberry (email client). Mulberry wasn't actively developed since 2007 and became nowadays completely unusable because of its outdated codebase. Most clients with an article have very likely less users than GyazMail and many of them aren't even actively developed anymore. Besides that, Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia, so there is no need to save paper. Actually I perceive these recurring requests for deletion as aggravating and pointless trolling. Liebeskind (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: another reference Liebeskind (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And another two sources:, Liebeskind (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The focus should be on the notability of the subject. The arguments used seem very similar to some of the ones listed here Subjective importance. Another essay which provides a good point as well: Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Two thirds of the mail clients mentioned on Wikipedia are less notable than GyazMail. Do you really want to delete all of them? Liebeskind (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   01:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A perfectly reasonable nomination when unsourced, but we now have Macworld reviews from 2005, 2008 and 2013 in the article. They aren't huge, but the are neutral and independent and directly related to the product. A product of this longevity that has been noted and reviewed in independent trade publications repeatedly would appear to safely cross the notability threshold.Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There is 2-3 reliable sources have been identified, but the rest seem a bit questionable, so it might not pass the notability guideline as the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2017 (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.