Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MDaemon


 * 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 delete.  MBisanz  talk 18:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

MDaemon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is mostly promotional in content and appears to contain little encyclopedic content. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: MDaemon is a notable product, promotional content can be rephrased or removed. --Zac67 (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just commercial promotional blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep Reviews mentioned in the further reading section. There are more (eg. InfoWorld, 24 April 2000, p. 66). However, I agree the article is in a terrible state, most informations are referenced by the company webpage - TNT is the way to go... and start anew. I would delete anything other than lead, Early history and Version History (well, maybe this one too... there should be at least references to available reviews). Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Not notable and basically reaches criteria for speedy deletion. A7 and G11 policies support deletion of this article (Criteria for speedy deletion). FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As of miserable article content, I just removed most of corpcruft and my intention is to rewrite the article (there is plenty of RS for that purpose). Note your delete "vote" is already included in your nomination. Please change this to "comment". Pavlor (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Pavlor (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:MILL, as nothing indicates to me why Wikipedia requires this article if similar ones exist. Potentially fails WP:PRODUCT as well.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:00, 17 September 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.