Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notmuch


 * 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. Wizardman 16:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Notmuch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Insignificant program lacking coverage in independent reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  Chickadee46   talk  00:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep (or, failing that, userfy). Has received significant coverage in at least one reliable source that is independent of the subject. zazpot (talk) 01:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which source is that? -- HighKing ++ 17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * LWN.net is that source. zazpot (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From what I can see in the article, there's three references from LWN.net, a passing mention in a thesis, a blog and a list of "best Linux shell apps". The last three fail the criteria set out in WP:CORPDEPTH. The LWN.net site describes itself as the premier news and information source for the free software community but is arguably a blog since the website states they spend an unbelievable amount of time wandering the net in search of interesting developments to cover for our users. We also depend heavily on tips from our users; see the next section on how to send in something you have seen. -- HighKing ++ 17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling LWN.net a blog on that basis is essentially a dismissal of journalistic technique, which traditionally depends enormously on shoe leather and tips. Substitute "Wandering the neighbourhood in search of interesting developments to cover for our users" in place of the above, and it's clear that LWN.net is simply applying the same, traditional techniques to its non-traditional domain of coverage. With that objection to LWN.net as a source out of the way, the subject meets WP:GNG. zazpot (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting what they have on their website. You use the term "journalistic technique" but LWN has no jouralists employed and they request contributions from others (as per user-contributions) for pay. I agree though that the word "blog" is probably not appropriate but equally I cannot agree that this website meets the criteria in WP:RS. Finally - lets say that the website is acceptable - as per WP:CORPDEPTH the topic is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources but that a single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. This is still a single source and more is required. -- HighKing ++ 14:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAICT, both of your objections about LWN.net are groundless:
 * "LWN has no jouralists employed". False: four staff members are listed here.
 * "they request contributions from others (as per user-contributions) for pay" LWN.net accepts free-lance contributions, but they only do so under editorial oversight. They do not just publish any random submissions. This is concordant with a fair number of other reputable mainstream or specialist periodicals.
 * As for whether WP:GNG is satisfied if LWN.net is a WP:RS, clearly it is. The subject has received significant coverage in at least one WP:RS and passing coverage in others. That suffices. WP:GNG does not require significant coverage in multiple WP:RSs. zazpot (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards agreeing with you that LWN meets WP:RS, thank you for the rebuttals. But both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH look for sources and not just one. -- HighKing ++ 12:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering LWN as a WP:RS. That's good to hear. As for sources, I'll address WP:GNG's relevant remarks. It says:
 * "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The use of "usually" rather than "always" makes me think it would be fair for me to ask you to regard the LWN article by freelance LWN writer (and mdadm developer, incidentally) Neil Brown as being distinct, for notability purposes, from the ones by LWN staffer Jonathan Corbet. If you felt charitable enough to do this, and you've come to accept LWN as a WP:RS then great: we've got multiple, in-depth, reliable sources, and WP:GNG is met.
 * Alternatively: "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." Certainly, the LWN pieces are credible and provide sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Additionally, I understand them to be neutral insofar as there is no WP:COI between the authors of the pieces on the one hand, and the developers of Notmuch on the other. That being so, the coverage in LWN alone is arguably enough to meet WP:GNG. zazpot (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete While I agree that LWN.net is reliable, I'm not convinced of either the multiple or the sufficient detail prongs. More coverage from independent sources is needed.  I'm not sure what message the above links to rules for submissions to various unrelated sites is supposed to convey about such coverage from independent sources.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Eggishorn: "I'm not sure what message the above links to rules for submissions to various unrelated sites is supposed to convey about such coverage from independent sources." Those links should make sense if you follow the threaded discussion above between me and HighKing. Please let me know if you're still puzzled. Please could you also consider supporting merge instead of delete? zazpot (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Allow me to rephrase: I did, in fact, get the narrow point you were making about LWN.net. I don't think it affects the larger point of whether or not there is actual multiple, independent sources that cover this program.  I  would question the suitability of Linux mailbox search tools as an article subject  solely on WP:NOTCATALOG grounds (but that's hardly a definitive position).  Thanks.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * grepmail meets WP:GNG, as far as I can tell; likewise Mairix. That being so, an article on mailbox search tools featuring those and Notmuch would meet WP:GNG too, and would appear to be entirely in the spirit of the WP:FAILN recommendation quoted below. I don't see that WP:NOTCATALOG applies to articles meeting WP:GNG, especially if they address an actual topic, rather than simply containing a list or table. After all, if Wikipedia can legitimately have an entry on operating systems or integrated development environments, why not on mailbox search utilities, as long as the topic meets WP:GNG? If you think I am mistaken, do please let me know how so. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete and, I planned to comment sooner, I'll note that everything here is like a business listing and therefore WP:NOT applies, especially since there's then no actual substance. SwisterTwister   talk  18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SwisterTwister, in what way is it like a business listing? Please could you also consider supporting merge instead of delete? zazpot (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * Merge. If others feel that WP:FAILN applies, then as a preferable alternative to deletion or userfication, I propose merging the Notmuch article, together with my draft Mairix and grepmail articles, into an article about mailbox search utilities, which is a fairly distinct category of software tools. This would be in accordance with the guidance given at WP:FAILN: "consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context". zazpot (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)