Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MUSH (e-mail client)


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

MUSH (e-mail client)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of how this orphaned topic might meet notability guidelines. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Only reference provided is to the author's personal website. RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I will work to add more source references. It's challenging, as when MUSH was most popular, the WWW hadn't been invented yet and many of the things written about it were in paper magazines. Look for regular progress towards a complete article. I'm also hoping other editors will add additional content beyond my knowledge of it. Slaurel (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Page now includes more content (won't claim _good_ content) than either the dominant mail client from 1986-1995, Elm, or the current dominant text mail client, Mutt, and additional external references. Slaurel (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hi. The article has very little in the way of verifiability, too far from enough. We cannot even verify if it is created yesterday or indeed has been around since before "WWW" (world wide web?) Notability guideline compliance is at zero. I have no prejudice against userification or re-creation when secondary sources were found and notability was established. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;I have dim memories of this software from back in the day, but I'm just not finding the reliable sources that would justify an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Usenet discussions from 1999 would help? [] [] Or the first Usenet post, from May 6th, 1989 - announcing the relocation of the discussion group from a private MIT mailing list to Usenet: [] There are over a thousand discussion threads available on google groups from that 1989 message onwards. comp.mail.mush was the newsgroup dedicated for the discussion of this software. Slaurel (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I must say, I'm feeling discouraged from attempting to add material to wikipedia. If it's going to feel like a war just to get a new page established then it's not going to be enjoyable to try and participate. I'm trying to learn the subtleties of the various guidelines, but it's not a trivial matter, and it seems like people are saying "I've never heard of it, so it shouldn't be an article.". Here's a link to the CVS history from NetBSD Pkgsrc which shows mush was first included in the packaging system there in 1998. [] - I think that should make it clear that mush wasn't written (or invented) yesterday - as well as the reference from the mutt documentation that features from mush were part of the inspiration for mutt (the most popular current text mail user agent, for those wikipedia editors who are not familiar with Unix).


 * I realize that none of the above addresses the Notability question - but do articles really have to be noteworthy to the general public, or is it sufficient to be noteworthy to experts in the relevant field? There aren't going to be a lot of web documents discussing mush, at least until (if ever), the print magazines of that era are digitized and made available online. Slaurel (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment a couple of things here. First, please dont be discouraged.  You've picked a tough topic to contribute on, verifiability is going to be tough to meet.  The USENET posts you  cite above establish that the software exists, but doesn't address notability concerns.  USENET posts are going to be treated like blog posts for purposes of determining their reliability.  Unfortunately those are not reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I posted these potential WP:RS at Slaurel's talk page as well.
 * Google books reports The Z-Mail Handbook mentions mush on 67 pages. Looks like you can pick it up used for $0.01 at Amazon (plus shipping) or you might be able to find a library nearby.  You might also want to grab Ken Rosen's Unix System V Release 4:  An Introduction and Linda Lamb's Using Email Effectively:  both have at least a paragraph devoted to mush, and both would be considered reliable, independent third-party sources.
 * I don't have access to these and don't know if it's enough to warrant keeping the article. My preference at the moment remains deletion and reconstructing the article later if the cites (and others?) pan out.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You might want to post that material here so all can see it and consider it as a part of the discussion. Ultimately the decision to keep or delete is going to be made by an admin based on the discussion here, not on individuals talk pages.--RadioFan (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done&mdash;text above updated with links. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've ordered the three books that User:Lesser Cartographies suggested, used from Amazon. I'll add the references when they arrive. Slaurel (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2013 (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.